(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina courts : annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts"



CA 



^^artlf (Kartrltmt (Kxmrts 



1969-90 



.,., 








N.C. DOCUMENTS 
CLEARINGHOUSE 


JVnnual Report 


JUN 14 1991 




of i\\t 


N.C. STATE LIBRARY 
RALEIGH 


JVomtmstrattOe 


(Biixtt of i\\t 


(ttourts 



The Cover: The Pender County Courthouse in Burgaw, North Carolina was dedicated 
in 1937. The three-story, brick-veneered Georgian Revival building features a hipped 
roofed main block flanked by projecting gable-roofed wings, and Flemish bond brick 
enlivened by contrasting masonry trim. The courthouse square in the heart of Burgaw 
is beautifully landscaped around mature oaks that dot the lawns. In 1989, the Pender 
County Courthouse was renovated and modernized. Pender County was created in 
1875 with Burgaw (then called Stanford) as its seat, and was named for General 
William Pender of the Confederate States Army. 



NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 



1989-90 




ANNUAL REPORT 
of the 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 




ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

JUSTICE BUILDING 
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 



The Honorable James G. Exum, Jr., Chief Justice 
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 
Raleigh, North Carolina 

Dear Mr. Chief Justice: 

In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes, I herewith transmit the 
Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1 , 
1989 — June 30, 1990. 

Fiscal year 1989-90 marks the sixth consecutive year with significant increases in filings and dispositions 
in both the Superior and District Courts. During 1989-90, as compared to 1988-89, total case filings 
increased by 8.5% in Superior Court and by 3.0% in District Court; dispositions increased by 5.8% in 
Superior Court and by 3.6% in District Court. Because total filings were greater than total dispositions, 
more cases were pending at the end of the fiscal year than were pending at the beginning. 

Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, and 
writing required to produce this Annual Report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal 
responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Information Services Division. 
The principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of 
superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. The Clerk of the Supreme Court 
and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals provided the case data relating to our appellate courts. 

Without the responsible work of many persons across the State this report would not have been possible. 

Respectfully submitted, 




Franklin Freeman, Jr. 
Director 



April 1991 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Parti 
The 1989-90 Judicial Year in Review 

The 1989-90 Judicial Year in Review 1 

Part II 

Court System Organization and Operations in 1989-90 

Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 7 

The Present Court System 10 

Organization and Operations 

The Supreme Court 14 

The Court of Appeals 25 

Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 29 

Map of District Court Districts 30 

Map of Prosecutorial Districts 31 

The Superior Courts 32 

The District Courts 35 

District Attorneys 40 

Clerks of Superior Court 44 

The Administrative Office of the Courts 47 

Juvenile Services Division 49 

Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services 51 

Public Defenders 53 

Appellate Defender 55 

The North Carolina Courts Commission 56 

The Judicial Standards Commission 58 

Part III 
Court Resources in 1989-90 

Judicial Department Finances 

Appropriations 63 

Expenditures 66 

Receipts 68 

Distribution of Receipts 69 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 72 

Judicial Department Personnel 80 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1989-90 

Trial Courts Case Data 83 

Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 87 

District Court Division Caseflow Data 179 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Part II 
Court System Organization and Operations in 1989-90 

Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the 

Present Court System 10 

Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina 

Trial Courts 13 

The Supreme Court of North Carolina 14 

Supreme Court, Caseload Inventory 16 

Supreme Court, Appeals Filed 17 

Supreme Court, Petitions Filed 17 

Supreme Court, Caseload Types 18 

Supreme Court, Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage 19 

Supreme Court, Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 19 

Supreme Court, Disposition of Appeals 20 

Supreme Court, Manner of Disposition of Appeals 21 

Supreme Court, Type of Disposition of Petitions 21 

Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Disposed of, 

1984-85—1989-90 22 

Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 

1984-85—1989-90 23 

Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Cases 24 

The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 25 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 27 

Court of Appeals, Manner of Case Dispositions 27 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1984-85—1989-90 28 

Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 29 

Map of District Court Districts 30 

Map of Prosecutorial Districts 31 

Judges of Superior Court 32 

Special, Emergency, and Retired /Recalled Judges of Superior Court 33 

District Court Judges 35 

District Attorneys 40 

Clerks of Superior Court 44 

Chief Court Counselors — Juvenile Services Division 50 

Guardian Ad Litem Division District Administrators 52 

Public Defenders 53 

Appellate Defenders 55 

The North Carolina Courts Commission 56 

The Judicial Standards Commission 58 

Part III 
Court Resources in 1989-90 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 63 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 64 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of All 

State Agencies and Judicial Department, 1983-84—1989-90 65 

General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations 66 

Judicial Department Expenditures 67 

Judicial Department Receipts 68 

Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 69 

Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the 

Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 70 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 73 

State Mental Health Hospital Commitment Hearings 74 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem Cases and Expenditures 75 

Judicial Department Personnel 80 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1989-90 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 88 

Superior Courts, Caseload 89 

Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 90 

Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Trends 91 

Superior Courts, Civil Case Filings By Case-Type 92 

Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory, By District and County 93 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition 98 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, By District and County 99 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Pending, By District and County 106 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Disposed, By District and County Ill 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 116 

Superior Courts, Filings and Dispositions For Estates and Special Proceedings, 

By District and County 117 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases 122 

Superior Courts, Criminal Case Filings By Case-Type 123 

Superior Courts, Caseload Inventory for Criminal Cases, By District and County 124 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies 130 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies, By District and County 131 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors 139 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors, By District and County 140 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Pending, By District and County 148 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Disposed, By District and County 162 

District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 181 

District Courts, Caseload Trends 182 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 183 

District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Cases 184 

District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Filings By Case-Type 185 

District Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory, By District and County 186 

District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 191 

District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, By District and County 192 

District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Pending, By District and County 202 

District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Disposed, By District and County 207 

District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer Cases Pending, 

By District and County 212 



in 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

District Courts. Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer Cases Disposed, 

By District and County 217 

District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 222 

District Courts, Matters Alleged in Juvenile Petitions, By District and County 225 

District Courts. Adjudicatory Hearings For Juvenile Matters, By District and County 230 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Infraction and Criminal Cases 237 

District Courts, Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 238 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory, By District and County . . . 243 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 248 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition, 

By District and County 249 

District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Pending, By District and County 255 

District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Disposed, By District and County 261 

District Courts, Infraction Case Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 267 



IV 



PARTI 



THE 1989-1990 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



THE 1989-90 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's 
Judicial Department is for the fiscal year which began 
July 1, 1989, and ended June 30, 1990. 

The Workload of the Courts 

Case filings in the Supreme Court during 1989-90 
totaled 175, compared with 177 filings during 1988-89. A 
total of 626 petitions was filed in the Supreme Court, 
compared with 447 in 1988-89, and 106 petitions were 
allowed, compared with 71 in 1988-89. 

For the Court of Appeals for 1989-90, case filings were 
1,408 compared with 1,418 for the 1988-89 year. Petitions 
filed in 1989-90 totaled 451, compared with 385 during 
the 1988-89 year. 

More detailed data on the appellate courts are in- 
cluded in Part II of this Annual Report. 

In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal) 
increased by 8.5% to a total of 128,215 in 1989-90, com- 
pared with 118,188 in 1988-89. Superior court case 
dispositions increased by 5.8% to a total of 1 17,787, com- 
pared with 1 1 1,278 in 1988-89. As case filings during the 
year exceeded case dispositions, the total number of cases 
pending at the end of the year increased by 10,428. 

Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital 
commitment hearings, the statewide total of district court 
filings (civil and criminal) during 1989-90 was 2,270,456, 
an increase of 66,713 (3.0%) from 1988-89 filings of 
2,203,743 cases. During 1989-90, a total of 669,667 
infraction cases was filed along with a total of 496,658 
criminal motor vehicle cases, for a combined total of 
1,166,325 cases. This combined total is an increase of 
20,492 cases (1.8%) above the 1,145,833 cases filed during 
1988-89. During 1989-90, filings of criminal non-motor 
vehicle cases in the district courts increased by 46,438 
(8.3%) to 603,328, compared with 556,890 during 1988- 
89. Filings of general civil cases in the district courts 
increased by 9.3% and filings of domestic relations cases 
increased by 6.9% compared to the numbers of these 
cases filed during 1988-89. Filings of civil magistrate 
cases decreased by 5.0%, from 308,029 in 1988-89 to 
292,572 during 1989-90. 

Operations of the superior and district courts are sum- 
marized in Part II of this Report, and detailed informa- 
tion on the caseloads is presented in Part IV for the 100 
counties, and for the judicial and prosecutorial districts. 

1990 Legislative Highlights 

Legislation enacted by the 1990 Session of the General 
Assembly included creation of a new public defender 
office, amendments to the guilty plea jurisdiction of 
clerks and magistrates, an increase in service of process 
fees, appropriations for new positions in the Judicial 
Department, and other measures that pertain directly to 
court officials and court operations. In addition, the 
1990 Session enacted important legislation that pertains 
directly to the resources or operations of other state 



agencies, but which has significant implications for court 
operations. In recent years, there have been particularly 
dramatic increases in criminal drug case filings, and 
prison crowding has had pervasive impacts throughout 
the criminal justice system. The 1990 Legislative High- 
lights that follow begin with legislation relating to prison 
resources, sentencing, and drugs. While not all of this 
legislation directly pertains to Judicial Department 
offices, the legislation in these areas appears to respond 
to criminal justice issues that at present are of key impor- 
tance to the efficient and effective administration of 
justice. 

Prison Facilities Bonds 

The General Assembly authorized the issuance of up 
to $75 million in general obligation, "two-thirds" bonds 
during fiscal 1990-91, to finance the costs of providing 
additional prison facilities (1989 Session Laws, Regular 
Session 1990, Chapter 933). The legislation allocates 
bond proceeds among nine specific projects, to provide 
additional prison bed capacity for 2,036 inmates. ("Two- 
thirds" bonds are those which may be issued without 
voter referendum, and which do not exceed two-thirds of 
the amount by which the State's outstanding indebted- 
ness was reduced during the preceding biennium.) 

In addition, Chapter 935 provides for issuance of up 
to $200 million in State bonds to finance the costs of 
State prison and youth services facilities, subject to voter 
approval of a referendum. (The bond referendum was 
approved by the voters in the November, 1990 election.) 
The specific projects to be funded will be determined by 
the 1991 or subsequent Sessions of the General Assembly. 

Prison Population Stabilization 

The General Assembly increased the maximum num- 
ber of prisoners that can be housed in the State prison 
system before the Parole Commission must reduce the 
prison population by granting parole to otherwise eligible 
offenders. Chapter 1 of the 1990 Extra Session raised the 
prison cap in G.S. 148-4.1 from 17,640 to 18,155, effec- 
tive March 28, 1990; to 18,277 effective May 15, 1990; 
and to 18,341 effective June 15, 1990. Amendments 
enacted during the regular 1990 Session of the 1989 
General Assembly (Chapter 933, Sections 10-14), phase 
in additional increases in the prison cap, to 18,938, 
effective November 1, 1990, and to 20,026, effective June 
30, 1991. (The Secretary of Correction has discretion to 
advance or delay these effective dates by up to 45 days 
based on the availability or lack of prison space.) 

Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission 

The General Assembly established a 23-member Sen- 
tencing and Policy Advisory Commission to evaluate the 
State's sentencing laws and policies, and to make recom- 
mendations to the General Assembly (Chapter 1076, 



THE 1989-90 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



effective Julv 28. 1990, and expiring July 1, 1992, adding 
Article 4 to G.S. Chapter 164, G.S. 164-35 et. seq.). 
Among the Commission's duties are to classify criminal 
offenses on the basis of their severity, to recommend 
sentencing structures for use by the sentencing court 
when determining the most appropriate sentence, to 
conduct a broad assessment of the operation and long- 
range needs of the criminal justice and corrections 
systems, and to recommend a comprehensive community 
corrections strategy for the State. The legislation sets 
forth policy objectives and considerations for the Com- 
mission to consider in fulfilling its specific tasks, as well 
as directions relating to the collection of relevant infor- 
mation and data, including development of a "correc- 
tional population simulation model" by which to evalu- 
ate the impact of possible changes in criminal law or 
sentencing laws. 

The membership of the Commission consists of offi- 
cials from all three branches of government, and includes 
representatives of relevant state and local criminal justice 
agencies, the bar, and the public. The legislation requires 
reports to the 1991 and 1992 Sessions of the General 
Assembly. 

New and Expanded Drug Offenses 

New section G.S. 90-95.4 establishes increased felony 
punishments for a person 18 years of age or older who 
hires a minor (under age 18) to commit a violation of 
G.S. 90-95(a)(l), relating to the sale, manufacture, or 
delivery of a controlled substance (Chapter 1081, effec- 
tive October 1, 1990). The punishments depend on the 
age of the offender, and the type and quantity of 
controlled substance involved. The punishment for an 
offender age 18 or older, but under age 21, is one class of 
felony more severe than the punishment for the crime 
that the minor was hired to commit. The punishment for 
an offender age 21 or older is two classes of felony more 
severe than the crime that the minor was hired to commit. 

This legislation also expands the enhanced punish- 
ments provided under G.S. 90-95(e), making it a Class E 
felony for a person age 18 or older to sell or deliver a 
controlled substance to a pregnant woman, or for a 
person 21 years of age or older to sell, deliver or manu- 
facture a controlled substance, or possess a controlled 
substance with intent to sell, deliver or manufacture, on 
or within 300 feet of an elementary or secondary school. 

Amendments to G.S. 90-95 make it a Class H felony 
to possess certain immediate "precursor" chemicals with 
the intent to manufacture a controlled substance, or to 
possess or distribute such chemicals with knowledge or 
reasonable cause to believe that the chemicals will be so 
used (Chapter 1039, Section 5, effective October 1, 
1990). 

Chapter 1040, effective July 27, 1990, amends several 
sections of G.S. Chapter 90, adding certain opiates, 
hallucinogens, and other drugs to the schedules of 
controlled substances. 



Investigative Grand Juries Extended 

Authorization for investigative grand juries in drug 
trafficking cases was extended for two years, to October 
1, 1993 (Chapter 1039, Section 4). These special grand 
juries may be convened under the procedures of G.S. 
15A-622(h) to investigate alleged drug trafficking con- 
spiracies. 

Increased Penalty for Habitual DWI Offenders 

New section G.S. 20-138.5 increases the penalty for 
multiple impaired driving convictions (Chapter 1039, 
Sections 6 and 7, effective October 1, 1990). A person 
who drives while impaired, having been convicted within 
the previous seven years of three or more impaired 
driving offenses defined under G.S. 20-4.01(24a), com- 
mits the offense of habitual impaired driving. In addition 
to permanent license revocation, the offense is punish- 
able as a Class J felony with a minimum sentence of one 
year that cannot be suspended. 

Expanded House Arrest 

Effective October 1, 1990, Chapter 1031 makes house 
arrest an available punishment option for the first two of 
the five punishment levels for driving while impaired. 
Under the amendments to G.S. 20-1 79(g) and (h), the 
judge may impose a shorter mandatory minimum term 
of imprisonment, of no less than four (rather than 14) 
days for Level One and no less than two (rather than 
seven) days for Level Two, combined with house arrest 
for twice the number of days by which the imprisonment 
was reduced. 

This legislation also authorizes the Parole Commission 
to impose house arrest on certain misdemeanor offenders 
as a condition of parole under G.S. 15A-1372(d) (effec- 
tive July 27, 1990). 

"IMPACT" Probation for Certain Youthful Offenders 

New subparagraph G.S. 15A-1343(bl)(2a) will provide 
judges with a new sentencing option that may be imposed 
on youthful offenders (Chapter 1010, effective January 1, 
1991). An eligible youthful offender may be required to 
submit to between 90 and 120 days of imprisonment in a 
facility for youthful offenders, and abide by the rules of 
the Intensive Motivational Program of Alternative 
Correctional Treatment (IMPACT). This "boot camp" 
program is intended to provide alternatives to long-term 
incarceration of youthful first offenders, by providing an 
atmosphere for learning personal responsibility, respect, 
and confidence. Eligible offenders are those between 16 
and 25 years of age who stand convicted of an offense 
punishable by imprisonment for one year or more, who 
did not previously serve an active sentence in excess of 
120 days, and who are certified by a medical evaluation 
to be fit for the Program. 



THE 1989-90 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



Felony Possession of Child Pornography 

New section G.S. 14-190. 17A makes it a Class J 
felony, called third degree sexual exploitation of a 
minor, to knowingly possess material that contains a 
visual representation of a minor engaging in sexual 
activity (Chapter 1022). Mistake of age is no defense. 

Compensation of Crime Victims 

Under G.S. 15B-1 1(a)(2), a crime victim may receive 
compensation from the Victims Compensation Fund for 
economic loss only if the loss is incurred within one year 
from the date of the criminal conduct that caused the 
loss. Amendments to this section extend this one year 
period to two years for crime victims who were ten years 
of age or less when injured by criminal conduct (Chapter 
898, effective July 12, 1990, and applying to conduct 
occurring on or after July 12, 1988). 

In a measure designed to comply with federal funding 
eligibility requirements, amendments to G.S. 15B- 
11(a)(4) remove a prohibition against family or house- 
hold members of an offender from recovering from the 
Victims Compensation Fund (Chapter 1066, Section 
131, effective July 1, 1990). 

New Public Defender District 14 

The General Assembly established new Public De- 
fender District 14, to serve Durham County (Chapter 
1066, Section 127, effective July 1, 1990). The new Public 
Defender will be appointed by the Senior Resident 
Superior Court Judge of the set of districts that comprise 
Durham County, from a list of three to five nominees 
submitted by licensed attorneys resident in the defender 
district. 

Special Capital Case Rehearing Fund 

The General Assembly appropriated $500,000 for 
fiscal 1990-91 to a special reserve for payment of indi- 
gents' attorney fees and related expenses associated with 
capital case resentencing proceedings that are required 
by the March 5, 1990, McKoy v North Carolina decision 
of the United States Supreme Court, and resulting deci- 
sions of the North Carolina Supreme Court (Chapter 
1066, Section 123). The U.S. Supreme Court held certain 
North Carolina capital case sentencing procedures un- 
constitutional, requiring resentencing of many of the 83 
inmates who were on death row at the time of the 
decision. 

Confidentiality of Judicial Standards Proceedings 

Amendments to G.S. 7A-377(a) narrow the confiden- 
tiality of proceedings before the Judicial Standards 
Commission, relating to allegations of judicial miscon- 
duct. Under present law, unless waived by the judge, all 
papers and proceedings are confidential, except the final 



recommendations and the supporting record that the 
Commission files with the Supreme Court. Effective 
October 1, 1990, if following its preliminary investigation 
the Commission concludes that formal proceedings 
should be instituted, the complaint, answer, and other 
pleadings, as well as formal hearings, will not be confi- 
dential (Chapter 995, Section 2). 

Guilty Plea Jurisdiction of Clerks and Magistrates 

The authority of magistrates to accept guilty pleas and 
enter judgment in littering cases was clarified to specify 
that it only applies to the relatively less serious littering 
violations specifically charged under subsection G.S. 14- 
399(c) (Chapter 1041, amending G.S. 7A-273(9), effective 
July 27, 1990). A law enacted in 1989 had inadvertently 
extended such magistrate jurisdiction to more serious 
littering violations under subsections G.S. 14-399(d) and 
(e). 

In addition, new subsection G.S. 7A-180(9) grants 
Clerks of Superior Court the jurisdiction to accept guilty 
pleas and enter judgments in littering offenses charged 
under G.S. 14-399(c). 

Extend Certain Special Superior Court Judge Term 

The term of any sitting special superior court judge 
who was appointed or elected in calendar year 1986 was 
extended through December 31, 1994 (Chapter 1066, 
Section 124). The effect of this legislation is to extend the 
term of one special superior court judge. 

Increased Service of Process Fees 

Effective October 1, 1990, the fee for service of process 
in criminal and civil cases is increased from $4.00 to 
$5.00 (Chapter 1044, amending G.S. 7A-304(a)(l) and 
G.S. 7A-31 1(a)(1)). Service of process fees are remitted 
to the counties or, in criminal cases, to a municipality 
that may have employed the law enforcement officer 
who served the process. 

Salaries 

Funds were appropriated for a 6% pay raise for all 
officials and employees of the Judicial Department. 

New Positions 

The 1990 Session of the General Assembly appro- 
priated or authorized the use of funds for the following 
new positions during fiscal 1990-91 (effective April 1, 
1991, unless otherwise stated): six superior court judges 
and conversion of two special superior court judges to 
resident judges, assigned to Districts 3 A, 5, 11, 13, 17A, 
20 A, 25 A, and 29, effective January 1, 1991; 15 district 
court judges, one effective July 1, 1990, for District 9 and 
the other 14 effective December 3, 1990, for Districts 4, 



THE 1989-90 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



5. '. 10. 11. 12. 17B. 18. 20. 22. 25. 26. 27B and 28; six 
court reporters for superior courts; two administrative 
secretaries for superior court judges; five magistrates, to 
be allocated in accordance with G.S. 7A-171; two admin- 
istrative assistants for Trial Court Administrators; eight 
assistant district attorneys, for Districts 1, 8, 9, 13, 14, 
17B. 2 7 B. and 30; five secretaries for district attorney 
offices; two victim witness assistants; 18 deputy clerks; 7 
juvenile court counselors and five secretaries for court 
counselors; three guardian ad litem coordinators; one 
arbitration coordinator; and one paralegal plus one 



secretary for public defenders. The judicial department 
was also authorized to use up to $759,292 from the 
Indigent Persons Attorney Fee Fund to establish a 
public defender office in District 14 (Durham County), 
effective July 1, 1991. 

Total Appropriations 

The 1990 Session of the General Assembly appropri- 
ated a total of $204,517,000 to the Judicial Department 
for the 1990-91 fiscal year. 



PART II 



COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION 
AND OPERATIONS 

• Historical Development of Court System 

• Present Court System 

• Organization and Operations in 1989-90 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



From its early colonial period North Carolina's judicial 
system has been the focus of periodic attention and 
adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeated 
sequence of critical examination, proposals for reform, 
and finally the enactment of some reform measures. 

Colonial Period 

Around 1700 the royal governor established a General 
(or Supreme) Court for the colony, and a dispute 
developed over the appointment of associate justices. The 
Assembly conceded to the King the right to name the chief 
justice, but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the power 
to appoint the associate justices. Other controversies 
developed concerning the creation and jurisdiction of the 
courts and the tenure of judges. As for the latter, the 
Assembly's position was that judge appointments should 
be for good behavior as against the royal governor's 
decision for life appointment. State historians have noted 
that "the Assembly won its fight to establish courts and 
the judicial structure in the province was grounded on 
laws enacted by the legislature," which was more familiar 
with local conditions and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 
142). Nevertheless, North Carolina alternated between 
periods under legislatively enacted reforms (like good 
behavior tenure and the Court Bill of 1746, which 
contained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary court 
system) and periods of stalemate and anarchy after such 
enactments were nullified by royal authority. A more 
elaborate system was framed by legislation in 1 767 to last 
five years. It was not renewed because of persisting 
disagreement between local and royal partisans. As a 
result, North Carolina was without higher courts until 
after Independence (Battle, 847). 

At the lower court level during the colonial period, 
judicial and county government administrative functions 
were combined in the authority of the justices of the 
peace, who were appointed by the royal governor. 

After the Revolution 

When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the 
colonial structure of the court system was retained largely 
intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the 
county court which continued in use from about 1670 to 
1868 — were still held by the assembled justices of the 
peace in each county. The justices were appointed by the 
governor on the recommendation of the General Assem- 
bly, and they were paid out of fees charged litigants. On 
the lowest level of the judicial system, magistrate courts of 
limited jurisdiction were held by justices of the peace, 
singly or in pairs, while the county court was out of term. 

The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the General 
Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Law 
and Equity. A court law enacted a year later authorized 
three superior court judges and created judicial districts. 
Sessions were supposed to be held in the court towns of 
each district twice a year, under a system much like the 
one that had expired in 1772. Just as there had been little 
distinction in terminology between General Court and 
Supreme Court prior to the Revolution, the terms 



Supreme Court and Superior Court were also inter- 
changeable during the period immediately following the 
Revolution. 

One of the most vexing governmental problems con- 
fronting the new State of North Carolina was its judiciary. 
"From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary caused 
complaint and demands for reform." (Lefler and New- 
some, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflicting judge 
opinions, an insufficient number of judges, and lack of 
means for appeal were all cited as problems, although the 
greatest weakness was considered to be the lack of a real 
Supreme Court. 

In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court 
judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court of 
Conference to resolve cases which were disagreed on in 
the districts. This court was continued and made perma- 
nent by subsequent laws. The justices were required to put 
their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in court. 
The Court of Conference was changed in name to the 
Supreme Court in 1 805 and authorized to hear appeals in 
1810. Because of the influence of the English legal system, 
however, there was still no conception of an alternative to 
judges sitting together to hear appeals from cases which 
they had themselves heard in the districts in panels of as 
few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an inde- 
pendent three-judge Supreme Court was created for 
review of cases decided at the Superior Court level. 

Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in 
each county were made mandatory in 1 806, and the State 
was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six 
judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constituting a 
quorum as before. 

The County Court of justices of the peace continued 
during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of 
local government. 

After the Civil War 

Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it 
more democratic were made in 1 868. A primary holdover 
from the English legal arrangement — the distinction 
between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. 
The County Court's control of local government was 
abolished. Capital offenses were limited to murder, arson, 
burglary and rape, and the Constitution stated that the 
aim of punishment was "not only to satisfy justice, but 
also to reform the offender, and thus prevent crime. " The 
membership of the Supreme Court was raised to five, and 
the selection of the justices (including the designation of 
the chief justice) and superior court judges (raised in 
number to 1 2) was taken from the legislature and given to 
the voters, although vacancies were to be filled by the 
governor until the next election. The Court of Pleas and 
Quarter Sessions — The County Court of which three 
justices of the peace constituted a quorum was 
eliminated. Its judicial responsibilities were divided be- 
tween the Superior Courts and the individual justices of 
the peace, who were retained as separate judicial officers 
with limited jurisdiction. 

Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Con- 
stitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court 



Historical Development Of The North Carolina Court System, Continued 



justices to three and the Superior Court judges to nine. 
The General Assembly, instead of the governor, was given 
the power to appoint justices of the peace. Most of the 
modernizing changes in the post-Civil War Constitution, 
however, were left, and the judicial structure it had 
established continued without systematic modification 
through more than half of the 20th century. (A further 
constitutional amendment approved by the voters in 
November. 1888. returned the Supreme Court member- 
ship to five, and the number of superior court judges to 
twelve.) 

Before Reorganization 

A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising 
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily 
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time 
systematic court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. 
This accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the 
court system was most evident at the lower, local court 
level, where hundreds of courts specially created by 
statute operated with widely dissimilar structure and 
jurisdiction. 

By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent 
major reforms was begun, the court system in North 
Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme Court, 
with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior court, with 
general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statutory courts of 
limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of the peace and 
mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction. 

At the superior court level, the State had been divided 
into 30 judicial districts and 21 solicitorial districts. The 
38 superior court judges (who rotated among the counties) 
and the district solicitors were paid by the State. The clerk 
of superior court, who was judge of probate and often 
also a juvenile judge, was a county official. There were 
specialized branches of superior court in some counties 
for matters like domestic relations and juvenile offenses. 

The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher of 
these local court levels were more than 180 recorder-type 
courts. Among these were the county recorder's courts, 
municipal recorder's courts and township recorder's 
courts; the general county courts, county criminal courts 
and special county courts; the domestic relations courts 
and the juvenile courts. Some of these had been estab- 
lished individually by special legislative acts more than a 
half-century earlier. Others had been created by general 
law across the State since 1919. About half were county 
courts and half were city or township courts. Jurisdiction 
included misdemeanors (mostly traffic offenses), prelimi- 
nary hearings and sometimes civil matters. The judges, 
who were usually part-time, were variously elected or 
appointed locally. 

At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and 
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had similar 
criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties up to 
a S50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the peace also 
had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These court officials 
were compensated by the fees they exacted, and they 
provided their own facilities. 



Court Reorganization 

The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revision 
of the court system received the attention and support of 
Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who encouraged the 
leadership of the North Carolina Bar Association to 
pursue the matter. A Court Study Committee was 
established as an agency of the North Carolina Bar 
Association, and that Committee issued its report, calling 
for reorganization, at the end of 1958. A legislative 
Constitutional Commission, which worked with the 
Court Study Committee, finished its report early the next 
year. Both groups called for the structuring of an all- 
inclusive court system which would be directly state- 
operated, uniform in its organization throughout the 
State and centralized in its administration. The plan was 
for a simplified, streamlined and unified structure. A 
particularly important part of the proposal was the 
elimination of the local statutory courts and their replace- 
ment by a single District Court; the office of justice of the 
peace was to be abolished, and the newly fashioned 
position of magistrate would function within the District 
Court as a subordinate judicial office. 

Constitutional amendments were introduced in the 
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required 
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were 
reintroduced and approved at the 1961 session. The 
Constitutional amendments were approved by popular 
vote in 1962, and three years later the General Assembly 
enacted statutes to put the system into effect by stages. By 
the end of 1970 all of the counties and their courts had 
been incorporated into the new system, whose unitary 
nature was symbolized by the name, General Court of 
Justice. The designation of the entire 20th century judicial 
system as a single, statewide "court," with components for 
various types and levels of caseload, was adapted from 
North Carolina's earlier General Court, whose full venue 
extended to all of the 17th century counties. 



After Reorganization 

Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization 
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has continued. 
In 1965, the Constitution was amended to provide for the 
creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It was 
amended again in 1 972 to allow for the Supreme Court to 
censure or remove judges; implementing legislation pro- 
vides for such action upon the recommendation of the 
Judicial Standards Commission. As for the selection of 
judges, persistent efforts were made in the 1970's to obtain 
legislative approval of amendments to the State Constitu- 
tion, to appoint judges according to "merit" instead of 
electing them by popular, partisan vote. The proposed 
amendments received the backing of a majority of the 
members of each house, but not the three-fifths required 
to submit constitutional amendments to a vote of the 
people. Merit selection continues to be a significant issue 
before the General Assembly. 



Historical Development Of The North Carolina Court Systems, Continued 

Major Sources 

Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History of the Supreme Court 

(Delivered in 1888). 1 North Carolina Reports 835-876. 
Hinsdale, C. E., County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. 
Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina: The 

History of a Southern State. 1963 Edition. 
Sanders, John L., Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A 

Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of 

Government. 
Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold, North Carolina Courts of Law 

and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular, 1973. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 

Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal 



Recommendations 

from Judicial 

Standards Commission 



SUPREME 
COURT 

7 Justices 



Original Jurisdiction > 

All felony cases; civil | 

cases in excess of , 

SI 0.000* > 

/ 



Decisions of 

Most Administrative 

Agencies 



SUPERIOR 
COURTS 

77 Judges 




1 Final Order of 

I Utilities Commission in ' 
General Rate Cases 



COURT OF 
APPEALS 

12 Judges 



Original Jurisdiction 
Probate and estates, 
special proceedings 
(condemnations, 
adoptions, partitions, 
foreclosures, etc.) 




criminal cases 
(for trial de novo) 



K 



(2) 



civil cases 



DISTRICT 
COURTS 

164 Judges 



Clerks of Superior 
Court 
(100 J 



Magistrates 

(654) 



1 



Decisions of Industrial 

Commission, State Bar, 

Property Tax Commission, 

Commissioner of Insurance, 

Bd. of State Contract Appeals, 

Dept. of Human Resources, 

Commissioner of Banks, 
Administrator of Savings and 

Loans, Governor's Waste 
Management Board, and the 
Utilities Commission (in cases 
other than general rate cases) 



Original Jurisdiction 
Misdemeanor cases not 
assigned to magistrates; 
probable cause hearings; 
civil cases $10,000* or 
less; juvenile proceedings; 
domestic relations; 
involuntary commitments 



Original Jurisdiction 
Accept certain misdemeanor 
guilty pleas and admissions 
of responsibility to infractions; 
worthless check misdemeanors 
$1,000 or less; small claims 
$2,000 or less; valuation of 
property in certain estate 
cases 



(1) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in cases involving constitutional questions, and cases in which there has 
been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may review Court of Appeals decisions in cases of significant public 
interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. 

CI) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. 

(2) Asa matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in first degree murder cases in which the defendent has been sentenced to death or 
life imprisonment, and in Utilities Commission general rate cases. In all other cases appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, 
the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the trial courts in cases of significant public interest, cases involving legal principles of major 
significance, where delay would cause substantial harm, or when the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. 

*The district and superior courts have concurrent original jurisdiction in civil actions (G.S. 7A-242). However, the district court division is the 
proper division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less; and the superior court division is the proper 
division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (G.S. 7A-243). 



10 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab- 
lishes the General Court of Justice which "shall consti- 
tute a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction, 
operation, and administration, and shall consist of an 
Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a 
District Court Division." 

The Appellate Division consists of the Supreme Court 
and the Court of Appeals. 

The Superior Court Division is composed of the 
superior courts, which hold sessions in the county seats 
of the 100 counties of the State. There are 60 superior 
court districts for electoral purposes only. For adminis- 
trative purposes, these are collapsed into 44 districts or 
"sets of districts." Some superior court districts comprise 
one county, some comprise two or more counties, and 
the more populous counties are divided into two or more 
districts for purposes of election of superior court judges. 
One or more superior court judges are elected for each of 
the superior court districts. A clerk of the superior court 
for each county is elected by the voters of the county. 

The District Court Division comprises the district 
courts. The General Assembly is authorized to divide the 
State into a convenient number of local court districts 
and prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but 
district court must sit in at least one place in each 
county. There are 37 district court districts, with each 
district composed of one or more counties. One or more 
district court judges are elected for each of the district 
court districts. The Constitution also provides that one 
or more magistrates "who shall be officers of the district 
court" shall be appointed in each county. 

The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains 
the term, "judicial department," and states that the 
"General Assembly shall have no power to deprive the 
judicial department of any power or jurisdiction that 
rightfully pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of 
the government, nor shall it establish or authorize any 
courts other than as permitted by this Article." The 
terms, "General Court of Justice" and "Judicial Depart- 
ment" are almost, but not quite, synonymous. It may be 
said that the Judicial Department encompasses all of the 
levels of court designated as the General Court of Justice 
plus all administrative and ancillary services within the 
Judicial Department. 

The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between 
the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of 
courts are illust r _..cu in the chart on the previous page. 

Criminal Cases 

Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original 
jurisdiction of the district courts. Some misdemeanor 
offenses are tried by magistrates, who are also em- 
powered to accept pleas of guilty and admissions of 
responsibility to certain offenses and impose fines in 
accordance with a schedule set by the Conference of 
Chief District Court Judges. Most trials of misdemean- 
ors are by district court judges, who also hold prelimi- 
nary, "probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of 
felony cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior 
courts. 



Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the 
district court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by 
jury available at the district court level; appeal from the 
district courts' judgments in criminal cases is to the 
superior courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in 
life-imprisonment or death sentence first degree murder 
cases (which are appealed to the Supreme Court), 
appeals of right from the superior courts are to the Court 
of Appeals. 

Civil Cases 

The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges 
of probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and 
estate matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over 
such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, con- 
demnations under the authority of eminent domain, and 
foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the 
superior court. 

The district courts have original jurisdiction in juvenile 
proceedings, domestic relations cases, and petitions for 
involuntary commitment to a mental hospital, and are 
the "proper" courts for general civil cases where the 
amount in controversy is $10,000 or less. If the amount 
in controversy is $2,000 or less and the plaintiff in the 
case so requests, the chief district court judge may assign 
the case for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates' 
decisions may be appealed to the district court. Trial by 
jury for civil cases is available in the district courts; 
appeal from the judgment of a district court in a civil 
case is to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. 

The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of 
general civil cases where the amount in controversy is 
more than $10,000. Appeals from decisions of most 
administrative agencies are first within the jurisdiction of 
the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in 
civil cases is to the Court of Appeals. 

Effective July 1, 1989, the General Assembly, under 
G.S. 7A-37.1, authorized statewide expansion of court- 
ordered, nonbinding arbitration in civil actions where 
claims do not exceed $15,000. The parties' rights to trial 
de novo and jury trial are preserved. As of June 30, 1990, 
arbitration programs had been established in nine judi- 
cial districts. 

The 1989 General Assembly also directed, beginning 
July 1, 1989, the phase-in of a statewide child custody 
and visitation mediation program (G.S. 7A-494). Unless 
the court grants a waiver, custody and visitation disputes 
must be referred to a mediator, who helps the parties 
reach a cooperative, nonadversarial resolution in the 
child's best interests. Any agreement reached is submitted 
to the court and, unless the court finds good reason not 
to, becomes a part of the court's order in the case. Issues 
not resolved by the mediation are reported by the media- 
tor to the court. As of June 30, 1990, these mediation 
programs were operating in three judicial districts. 

Administration 

The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general 
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of 



11 



The Present Court System, Continued 



the other courts of the General Court of Justice." (G.S. 
7A-32(b)). 

In addition to this grant of general supervisory power, 
the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain 
Judicial Department officials with specific powers and 
responsibilities for the operation of the court system. 
The Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing 
rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts 
and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supple- 
ment those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of 
the Supreme Court designates one of the judges of the 
Court of Appeals to be its Chief Judge, who in turn is 
responsible for scheduling the sessions of the Court of 
Appeals. 

The chart following illustrates specific trial court 
administrative responsibilities vested in Judicial Depart- 
ment officials by statute. The Chief Justice appoints the 
Director and Assistant Director of the Administrative 
Office of the Courts; the Assistant Director also serves as 
the Chief Justice's administrative assistant. The schedule 
of sessions of superior court in the 100 counties is set by 
the Supreme Court; assignment of the State's rotating 
superior court judges is the responsibility of the Chief 
Justice. Finally, the Chief Justice designates a chief 
district court judge for each of the State's 37 district 
court districts from among the elected district court 



judges of the respective districts. These judges have 
responsibilities for the scheduling of the district courts 
and magistrates' courts within their respective districts, 
along with other administrative responsibilities. 

The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible 
for direction of non-judicial, administrative and business 
affairs of the Judicial Department. Included among its 
functions are fiscal management, personnel services, 
information and statistical services, supervision of record 
keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, liaison with the 
legislative and executive departments of government, 
court facility evaluation, purchase and contract, educa- 
tion and training, coordination of the program for 
provision of legal counsel to indigent persons, juvenile 
probation and aftercare, guardian ad litem services, trial 
court administrator services, planning, and general ad- 
ministrative services. 

The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk 
for both the superior and district courts. Day-to-day 
calendaring of civil cases is handled by the clerk of 
superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in 
some districts, under the supervision of the senior resi- 
dent superior court judge and chief district court judge. 
The criminal case calendars in both superior courts and 
district courts are set by the district attorney of the 
respective district. 



12 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 




CHIEF JUSTICE 

and 

SUPREME COURT 



Administrative 

Office of 

the Courts 



4 

i 



(37) District 
Attorneys 



(44) Senior Resident 

Judges; (100) Clerks 

of Superior Court 

SUPERIOR 
COURTS 




(37) Chief District 
Court Judges 

DISTRICT 
COURTS 



'The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other trial 
courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court judges, who 
rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice. 

2 The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the 
pleasure of the Chief Justice. 

3 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other trial 
courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 37 district court districts from the judges 
elected in the respective districts. 

4 The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the 
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the 
Judicial Department. 

5 The district attorney sets the criminal case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and 
the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their respective 
courts. 

6 In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping 
functions for both the superior court and district court of the county. Magistrates, who serve under the supervision of 
the chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees submitted by 
the clerk of superior court. 



13 



THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

(As of June 30, 1990) 



Chief Justice 
JAMES G. EXUM, JR. 



LOUIS B. MEYER 
BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR. 
HARRY C. MARTIN 



Associate Justices 



HENRY E. FRYE 

JOHN WEBB 

WILLIS P. WHICHARD 



Retired Chief Justices 

WILLIAM H. BOBBITT 

SUSIE SHARP 

JOSEPH BRANCH 



I. BEVERLY LAKE 
J. FRANK HUSKINS 



Retired Justices 



DAVID M. BRITT 



Clerk 
J. Gregory Wallace 



Librarian 
Louise H. Stafford 




Chief Justice Exum 



14 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
The Supreme Court 



At the apex of the North Carolina court system is the 
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to 
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil 
and criminal cases on appeal. The Chief Justice and six 
associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by the 
voters of the State. The Court sits only en banc, that is, 
all members sitting on each case. 

Jurisdiction 

The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the 
Supreme Court is in the censure and removal of judges 
upon the non-binding recommendations of the Judicial 
Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jurisdic- 
tion includes: 

— cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals 
(cases involving substantial constitutional ques- 
tions and cases in which there has been dissent in 
the Court of Appeals); 

— cases on appeal by right from the Utilities Com- 
mission (cases involving final order or decision in a 
general rate matter); 

— criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior 
courts (first degree murder cases in which the 
defendant has been sentenced to death or life 
imprisonment); and 

— cases in which review has been granted in the 
Supreme Court's discretion. 

Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly 
from the trial courts may be granted when delay would 
likely cause substantial harm or when the workload of 
the Appellate Division is such that the expeditious 
administration of justice requires it. However, most 
appeals are heard only after review by the Court of 
Appeals. 



an Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the 
Chief Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from 
among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief 
District Court Judge from among the district court 
judges in each of the State's 37 district court districts. He 
assigns superior court judges, who regularly rotate from 
district to district, to the scheduled sessions of superior 
court in the 100 counties, and he is also empowered to 
transfer district court judges to other districts for tem- 
porary or specialized duty. The Chief Justice appoints 
three of the seven members of the Judicial Standards 
Commission — a judge of the Court of Appeals who 
serves as the Commission's chairman, one superior court 
judge and one district court judge. The Chief Justice also 
appoints six of the 24 voting members of the North 
Carolina Courts Commission: one associate justice of 
the Supreme Court, one Court of Appeals judge, two 
superior court judges, and two district court judges. The 
Chief Justice also appoints the Appellate Defender, and 
the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of 
Administrative Hearings. 



Expenses of the Court, 1989-90 

Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 
1989-90 fiscal year amounted to $2,531,624. (Expendi- 
tures data for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and 
benefits) for state employees for June 1990. The June 
1990 payroll was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal 
1990-91. As a result, "total" expenditure data for 1989- 
90 are not comparable to such data for prior years.) 
Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 1989-90 
constituted 1.34% of all General Fund expenditures for 
the operation of the entire Judicial Department during 
the fiscal year. 



Administration 

The Supreme Court has general power to supervise 
and control the proceedings of the other courts of the 
General Court of Justice. The Court has specific power 
to prescribe the rules of practice and procedure for the 
trial court divisions, consistent with any rules enacted by 
the General Assembly. The schedule of superior court 
sessions in the 100 counties is approved yearly by the 
Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, the 
Librarian of the Supreme Court Library, and the Appel- 
late Division Reporter are appointed by the Supreme 
Court. 

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and 



Case Data, 1989-90 

A total of 295 appealed cases were before the Supreme 
Court during the fiscal year, 120 that were pending on 
July 1, 1989, plus 175 cases filed through June 30, 1990. 
A total of 141 of these cases were disposed of, leaving 
154 cases pending on June 30, 1990. 

A total of 681 petitions (requests to appeal) were 
before the Court during the 1989-90 year, with 601 
disposed during the year and 80 pending as of June 30, 
1990. The Court granted 106 petitions for review during 
1989-90 compared to 71 for 1988-89. 

More detailed data on the Court's workload are 
presented on the following pages. 



15 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 

Supreme Court Caseload Inventory 

July 1, 1989-June 30, 1990 



Petitions for Review 

Civil domestic 

Juvenile 

Other civil 

Criminal 

Postconviction remedy 

Administrative agency decision 

Total Petitions for Review 



'ending 






Pending 


7/1/89 


Filed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


3 


25 


27 


1 





3 


3 





23 


305 


270 


58 


19 


191 


194 


16 


9 


74 


81 


2 


1 


28 


26 


3 



55 



626 



601 



80 



Appeals 

Civil domestic 

Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals 

Juvenile 

Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals 

Other civil 

Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to death 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 

Other criminal 

Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals 

Petitions for review granted that became postconviction 

remedy cases 
Administrative agency decision 
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of 

administrative agency decision 

Total Appeals 

Other Proceedings 

Rule 16(b) additional issues re dissent 

Requests for advisory opinion 

Rule amendments 

Motions 

Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear 

Total Other Proceedings 



1 


4 


2 


3 


1 





1 

















1 


1 


1 


1 


15 


43 


26 


32 


24 


40 


35 


29 


27 


17 


15 


29 


24 


26 


21 


29 


7 


19 


17 


9 


12 


13 


14 


11 














6 


7 


6 


7 


2 


5 


3 


4 


120 


175 


141 


154 





17 


15 


2 

















56 


42 


14 





226 


226 





«) 


12 


12 






311 



295 



16 



16 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 

APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT 
JULY 1, 1989 - JUNE 30, 1990 



CRIMINAL-DEATH 



CRIMINAL LIFE 




ADMIN. AGENCY 



OTHER CIVIL 



0.6% (1) JUVENILE 



OTHER CRIMINAL 



2.3% (4) DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT 
JULY 1, 1989 - JUNE 30, 1990 



OTHER CIVIL 



JUVENILE 0.5% (3) 



CRIMINAL 




ADMIN. AGENCY 4.5% (28) 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 4.0% (25) 



POSTCONVICTION REMEDY 



17 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
Supreme Court Caseload Types by Superior Court Division and District 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Judicial 


Superior Court 


Total 


Death 


Life 


Other 


Civil 


Other 


Cases 


Division 


District 


Cases 


Cases 


Cases 


Criminal 


Cases 


Cases 


Disposed 


I 


1 


5 


3 


1 


1 








1 




2 


3 





2 





1 





2 




3A 


8 





1 


4 


3 





3 




3B 


8 











8 





5 




4A 


5 


2 


1 


2 








1 




4B 


5 


2 


1 


2 








3 




5 


12 


4 


2 


1 


5 





4 




6A 


5 


3 





1 


1 





1 




6B 


5 


1 


2 


1 


1 





3 




7A 


3 


2 








1 





1 




7B-C 


3 











2 


I 


2 




8A 


3 





2 


1 








2 




8B 


5 


1 


2 


1 


1 





3 


SUBTOTAL 




70 


18 


14 


14 


23 


1 


31 


II 


9 


6 


2 


1 


! 


2 





2 




10 


51 


7 


2 


2 


19 


21 


24 




11 


6 


1 


2 


2 


1 





1 




12 


16 


3 


6 


6 


1 





11 




13 


5 


1 


2 





2 










14 


10 


3 


1 


2 


3 


I 


6 




15A 


5 


1 


1 





3 










15B 


5 





1 


2 


2 





2 




16A 


3 


2 








1 





1 




16B 


8 


3 


2 


3 








3 


SUBTOTAL 




115 


23 


18 


18 


34 


22 


50 


III 


17A 


5 


3 


1 





1 





1 




17B 


3 


1 








2 





2 




18 


23 


2 


5 


5 


11 





7 




19A 


3 


1 





1 


1 





2 




19B 


3 


1 





1 


1 





2 




19C 


4 





3 








1 


2 




20A 


10 


2 


1 





7 





3 




20B 


2 


1 








1 





1 




21 


17 





3 


2 


10 


2 


6 




22 


9 


4 








5 





6 




23 


2 





1 


1 








1 


SUBTOTAL 




XI 


15 


14 


10 


39 


3 


33 


IV 


24 


4 


1 





2 


1 





2 




25 A 


7 


2 


2 





3 





4 




25B 


7 





3 


1 


3 





4 




26 


17 


2 


1 


2 


10 


2 


8 




27A 


3 


1 





1 


1 





1 




27B 


1 





1 
















28 


7 





2 





5 





5 




29 


7 


2 


2 





3 





1 




30A 


2 


1 





1 








1 




30 B 


2 








2 








1 


SUBTOTAL 




57 


9 


11 


9 


26 


2 


27 



TOTALS 323 65 57 51 122 28 141 

NOTE: Includes life & death sentence cases awaiting Record on Appeal and not yet formally docketed. 



18 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 

Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage in Supreme Court 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Cases Argued 

Civil Domestic 

Juvenile 

Other Civil 

Criminal (death sentence) 

Criminal (life sentence) 

Other Criminal 

Administrative Agency Decision 

Total cases argued 

Submissions Without Argument 

By motion of the parties (Appellate Rule 30 (d)) 
By order of the Court (Appellate Rule 30 (f)) 

Total submissions without argument 

Total Cases Reaching Decision Stage 



5 

2 
76 
IK 
27 
36 
12 

176 



I 
I 

2 
178 



Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings by the Supreme Court 
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Petitions for Review 


Granted* 


Denied 


Dismissed/ 
Withdrawn 


Total 
Disposed 


Civil Domestic 

Juvenile 

Other Civil 

Criminal 

Postconviction Remedy 

Administrative Agency Decision 


1 

1 

58 

40 

1 
5 


26 

2 

210 

152 

63 

21 






2 

2 

17 




27 

3 

270 

194 

81 

26 


Total Petitions for Review 


106 


474 


21 


601 


Other Proceedings 










Rule 16(b) — Additional Issues 

Advisory Opinion 

Rule Amendments 

Motions 

Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear 








15 

«» 

42 

226 

12 


Total Other Proceedings 








295 



*"Granted" includes orders allowing relief without accepting the case as a full appeal. 



19 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Signed Opinions 











Reversed 




Total 


Case Types 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Remanded 


Remanded 


Disposed 


Civil domestic 




















Juvenile 








1 








1 


Other civil 


13 


1 


5 


14 





33 


Criminal (death sentence) 


b 








4 


3 


13 


Criminal (life sentence) 


19 








2 





21 


Other criminal 


5 





10 


5 





20 


Postconviction remedy 




















Administrative agency decision 


3 





2 








5 



Totals 



46 



18 



25 



93 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Opinions 











Reversed 




Total 


Case Types 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Remanded 


Remanded 


Disposed 


Civil domestic 


2 














2 


Juvenile 




















Other civil 


17 





2 


3 





22 


Criminal (death sentence) 











1 


1 


2 


Criminal (life sentence) 




















Other criminal 


4 








1 





5 


Postconviction remedy 




















Administrative agency decision 


2 





2 








4 



Totals 



25 







1 



35 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals by Dismissal or Withdrawal 

Case Types 



Dismissed or 
Withdrawn 



Civil domestic 

Juvenile 

Other civil 

Criminal (death sentence) 

Criminal (life sentence) 

Other criminal 

Postconviction remedy 

Administrative agency decision 

Totals 



I 


6 


6 



13 



20 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 

MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT 

JULY 1, 1989 - JUNE 30, 1990 



DISMISSED/ WITHDRAWN 




SIGNED OPINIONS 



PER CURIAM OPINIONS 



TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT 

JULY 1, 1989 - JUNE 30, 1990 




DENIED 



GRANTED 



DISMISSED/ WITHDRAWN 



21 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 

Appeals Docketed and Disposed of During the Years 1984-85—1989-90 



400 



B 



Appeals Docketed 
Appeals Disposed of 



300 



\ 
U 
M 
B 
F 
R 

O 
F 

C 

•\ 

s 

E 

S 



200 



100 




220 



200 



196 



216 



145 



177 



154 



175 



141 



1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 



22 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 

Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years 1984-85—1989-90 



800 



N 
V 
M 
B 
E 
R 

O 

F 

C 

A 
S 
E 
S 




674 



99 



635 



67 



n 



I 



Petitions Docketed 
Petitions Allowed 



447 



7! 



106 



1984-85 1985-86 



1986-87 1987-88 



1988-89 



1989-90 



23 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 



Supreme Court Processing Time for Disposed Cases 

(Total time in days from docketing to decision) 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Civil domestic 

Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals 

Juvenile 

Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals 

Other civil 

Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to death 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 

Other criminal 

Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals 

Petitions for review granted that became postconviction remedy cases 

Administrative agency decision 

Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative 
agency decision 

Total appeals 



Number 
of Cases 


(Days) 
Median 


(Days) 
Mean 


2 


138.0 


138.0 


1 


174 


174.0 











1 


211 


211.0 


26 


223 


224.2 


35 


239 


270.7 


15 


447 


472.0 


21 


363 


414.8 


17 


262 


211.1 


14 


246 


287.6 











6 


233 


260.3 


3 


308 


259.7 


141 


247 


295.8 



24 



THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA 
(As of June 30, 1990) 



Chief Judge 
R. A. HEDRICK 



GERALD ARNOLD 
HUGH A. WELLS 
CLIFTON E. JOHNSON 
EUGENE H. PHILLIPS 
SIDNEY S. EAGLES, JR. 
SARAH PARKER 



Judges 



JACK COZORT 

ROBERT F. ORR 

K. EDWARD GREENE 

JOHN B. LEWIS, JR. 

ALLYSON K. DUNCAN 



FRANK M. PARKER 
EDWARD B. CLARK 
ROBERT M. MARTIN 



Retired Judges 



CECIL J. HILL 
MAURICE BRASWELL 



Clerk 
FRANCIS E. DAIL 



Assistant Clerk 
JOHN H. CONNELL 



25 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
The Court of Appeals 



The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's 
intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the 
appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The 
Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other 
locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme 
Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular 
or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected 
by popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for 
the Court is designated by the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court and serves in that capacity at the pleasure 
of the Chief Justice. 

Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the 
Chief Judge responsible for assigning members of the 
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each 
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal 
number of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge 
presides over the panel of which he or she is a member 
and designates a presiding judge for the other panels. 

One member of the Court of Appeals, designated by 
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serves as 
chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission. 

Jurisdiction 

The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals 
consists of cases appealed from the trial courts. The 
Court also hears appeals directly from the Industrial 
Commission, along with appeals from certain final orders 
or decisions of the North Carolina State Bar, the Com- 
missioner of Insurance, the Board of State Contract 
Appeals, the Department of Human Resources, the 
Commissioner of Banks, the Administrator of Savings 
and Loans, the Governor's Waste Management Board, 
the Property Tax Commission, and the Utilities Com- 
mission (in cases other than general rate cases). Appeals 
from the decisions of other administrative agencies lie 
first within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. 



In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial 
Standards Commission to censure or remove from office 
a justice of the Supreme Court, the non-binding recom- 
mendation would be considered by the Chief Judge and 
the six judges next senior in service on the Court of 
Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as the Commis- 
sion's chair). Such seven-member panel would have sole 
jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recommen- 
dation. 



Expenses of the Court, 1989-90 

Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during 
the 1989-90 fiscal year totalled $3,341,672. (Expenditures 
data for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and bene- 
fits) for state employees for June 1990. The June 1990 
payroll was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal 1990- 
91. As a result, "total" expenditure data for 1989-90 are 
not comparable to such data for prior years.) Expendi- 
tures for the Court of Appeals during 1989-90 amounted 
to 1.8% of all General Fund expenditures for operation 
of the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. 



Case Data, 1989-90 

A total of 1,408 appealed cases were filed before the 
Court of Appeals during the period July 1, 1989 - June 
30, 1990. A total of 1,366 cases were disposed of during 
the same period. During 1989-90, a total of 451 petitions 
and 1,473 motions were filed before the Court of 
Appeals. 

Further detail on the workload of the Court of 
Appeals is shown in the table and graph on the following 
pages. 



26 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
July 1, 1989 — June 30, 1990 



Cases on Appeal 

Civil cases appealed from district courts 
Civil cases appealed from superior courts 
Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies 
Criminal cases appealed from superior courts 

Total 



Filings 

251 

562 

99 

496 

1,408 



Dispositions 



1,366 



Petitions 

Allowed 

Denied 

Remanded 

Total 



451 



53 

372 

6 

431 



Motions 

Allowed 

Denied 

Remanded 

Total 



Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions 





855 




489 




22 


1,473 


1,366 


3,332 


3,163 



MANNER OF CASE DISPOSITIONS - COURT OF APPEALS 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 
Cases Disposed by Written Opinion 



Cases 
Affirmed 

882 



Cases 
Reversed 

247 



Cases Affirmed 

In Part, Reversed 

In Part 

92 



Other Cases 
Disposed 

145 



Total Cases 
Disposed 

1,366 



27 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Fiscal Years 1984-85 Through 1989-90 



3000 



2500 



N 

r 

M 

B 
E 

R 

<) 
I 

C 

\ 

s 

F 
s 




1984-85 



1985-86 1986-87 



1987-88 



1988-89 



1989-90 



Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases and petitions (but not motions) filed in the Court of Appeals. 



2H 





o 


^— > 


On 


?-H 


On 


3 


i— i 


o 
U 


O 
CO 


o 




•i-H 

5-H 


H^ 




o 


e 


(/J 
C3 


00 


C/3 


cd 


a 
o 


e 


c/) 


• tH 


•l— 1 


r~H 


> 


o 


•i— 1 

Q 


<3 

u 


T3 


^ 


in 


t5 


4— » 

o 


o 


5-h 

•4— > 







29 



t/3 

o 

CO 



° 2 

.Ho 

$h en 
to g 

cd o 



O 




-Si ^ 


LU 








^"jif e^ 


Q 
UJ 








S3 __ 


cc 








I >iE 




<> 
CD 




o 

: 1— 




5 






,, < =!z 




< 




<£ 



r 




30 



+- > 
O 

is 



Ctf 



?H 


o 


o 


On 


+- » 


o, 


s 


^H 


o 


<0 


O 

*H 

Oh 


0) 


c3 


o 


g 


c/o 


i | 


c3 


o 




$-1 




<tf 




U 




^ 




tt 




o 




£ 






i g 

v 6 * 


-0>_1 

> 


ft. 








HjO \ 






31 



JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT* 
(As of June 30, 1990) 



District 



3 A 

:^b 

4A 

4B 
5 

6A 

^B 

7A 

^B 
7C 

8A 

SB 



I0A 

MB 

IOC 

I0D 



FIRST DIVISION 

*J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City 
Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City 

*William C. Griffin, Jr., Williamston 

*David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville 

* Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City 

*Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville 

*James R. Strickland, Jacksonville 

*Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington 
Ernest B. Fullwood, Wilmington 

*Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids 

*Cy Anthony Grant, Sr., Windsor 

*Leon Henderson, Rocky Mount 

G. K. Butterfield, Jr., Wilson 
*Frank R. Brown, Tarboro 

*James D. Llewellyn, Kinston 

*Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro 

SECOND DIVISION 

*Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg 
Henry W. Hight, Jr., Henderson 

George R. Greene, Raleigh 

* Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh 
Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh 
Howard E. Manning, Jr., Raleigh 
Donald W. Stephens, Raleigh 



1 1 *Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn 

12A *D. B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville 
12B Gregory A. Weeks, Fayetteville 
12C Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville 
E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville 

13 *Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 

14A Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., Durham 
14B *Anthony M. Brannon, Durham 
J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham 
A. Leon Stanback, Jr., Durham 

15A *J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington 

15B *F. Gordon Battle, Hillsborough 

16A *B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg 

16B *Joe Freeman Britt, Lumberton 
Dexter Brooks, Pembroke 



THIRD DIVISION 
District 

17A *Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., Wentworth 

17B * James M. Long, Pilot Mountain 

18A W. Steven Allen, Sr., Greensboro 

18B Howard R. Greeson, Jr., Greensboro 

18C *W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 

18D Thomas W. Ross, Greensboro 

18E Joseph R. John, Greensboro 

19A *James C. Davis, Concord 

19B *Russell G. Walker, Jr., Asheboro 

19C Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer 

20A *F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro 

20B *William H. Helms, Monroe 

21 A James J. Booker, Winston-Salem 

21 B *Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem 

21C William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem 

21 D James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem 

22 *Preston Cornelius, Mooresville 

Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville 

23 *Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro 

FOURTH DIVISION 

24 *Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone 

25A *Claude S. Sitton, Morganton 
25B *Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 

26A Raymond A. Warren, Charlotte 

Shirley L. Fulton, Charlotte 
26B * Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte 

Samuel A. Wilson, III, Charlotte 
26C Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte 

Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte 

27A *Robert W. Kirby, Gastonia 
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia 

27B *John Mull Gardner, Shelby 

28 * Robert D. Lewis, Asheville 

C. Walter Allen, Asheville 

29 *Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton 
30A *James U. Downs, Franklin 

30B *Janet M. Hyatt, Waynesville 



'Senior Resident Superior Court Judge of the district or "set of districts' 



32 



SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 

Marvin K. Gray, Charlotte 

I. Beverly Lake, Jr., Raleigh 

Samuel T. Currin, Raleigh 

EMERGENCY AND RETIRED/RECALLED JUDGES 
OF SUPERIOR COURT 



Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton 

George M. Fountain, Tarboro 

James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh 

John R. Friday, Lincolnton 

D. Marsh McLelland, Graham 

Edward K. Washington, High Point 

L. Bradford Tillery, Wilmington 

Peter W. Hairston, Advance 



The Conference of Superior Court Judges 

(Executive Committee as of June 30, 1990) 

J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City, President 
Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown, President- Elect 
Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville, Vice-President 
E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville, Secretary-Treasurer 
Robert D. Lewis, Asheville, Immediate Past- President 

Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg, and 
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte, Ex Officio 

Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro, and 
J. Marlene Hyatt, Waynesville, 
Additional Executive Committee Members 




Judge J. Herbert Small 



33 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
The Superior Courts 



North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris- 
diction trial courts for the state. In 1989-90, there were 
~4 "resident" superior court judges elected by Statewide 
ballot to office for eight-year terms in the 60 superior 
court districts. In addition, three "special" superior court 
judges have been appointed by the Governor. 

Jurisdiction 

The superior court has original jurisdiction in all 
felony cases and in those misdemeanor cases specified 
under G.S. 7A-271. (Most misdemeanors are tried first 
in the district court, from which conviction may be 
appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a jury. 
No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in district 
court.) The superior court is the proper court for the trial 
of civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds 
SI 0.000. and it has jurisdiction over appeals from admin- 
istrative agencies except the Industrial Commission, 
certain rulings of the Commissioner of Insurance, the 
Board of Examiners of the North Carolina State Bar, the 
Board of State Contract Appeals, the Property Tax 
Commission, the Department of Human Resources, the 
Commissioner of Banks, the Administrator of Savings 
and Loans, the Governor's Waste Management Board, 
and the Utilities Commission. Appeals from these agen- 
cies lie directly to the North Carolina Court of Appeals 
(except for Utilities Commission general rate cases, 
which go directly to the Supreme Court). Regardless of 
the amount in controversy, the original civil jurisdiction 
of the superior court does not include domestic relations 
cases, which are heard in the district court, or probate 
and estates matters and certain special proceedings 
heard first by the clerk of superior court. Rulings of the 
clerk are within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior 
court. 

Administration 

The 100 counties in North Carolina were grouped into 
60 superior court districts as of January 1, 1989. Some 
superior court districts comprise one county; some com- 
prise two or more counties; and the more populous 
counties are divided among a "set of districts," composed 
of two or more districts created for purposes of election 
of superior court judges. Each district has at least one 
resident superior court judge who has certain adminis- 
trative responsibilities for his or her home district, 
such as providing for civil case calendaring procedures. 
(Criminal case calendars are prepared by the district 
attorneys.) In districts or sets of districts with more than 
one resident superior court judge, the judge senior in 



service on the superior court bench exercises these 
supervisory powers. 

The judicial districts are grouped into four divisions 
for the rotation of superior court judges, as shown on the 
preceding map. Within the division, resident superior 
court judges are required to rotate among the judicial 
districts and hold court for at least six months in each, 
then move on to their next assignment. A special superior 
court judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the 
100 counties. Assignments of all superior court judges 
are made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 
Under the Constitution of North Carolina, at least two 
sessions (of one week each) of superior court are held 
annually in each of the 100 counties. The vast majority 
of counties have more than the constitutional minimum 
of two weeks of superior court annually. Many larger 
counties have superior court sessions about every week 
in the year. 

Expenditures 

A total of $18,012,980 was expended on the operations 
of the superior courts during the 1989-90 fiscal year. This 
included the salaries and travel expenses for the 77 
superior court judges, and salaries and expenses for 
court reporters and secretarial staff for superior court 
judges. (Expenditures data for 1989-90 do not include 
payroll (salary and benefits) for state employees for June 
1990. The June 1990 payroll was disbursed in July 1990, 
which is fiscal 1990-91. As a result, "total" expenditure 
data for 1989-90 are not comparable to such data for 
prior years.) The 1989-90 expenditure for the superior 
courts amounted to 9.6% of the total General Fund 
expenditures for the operations of the entire Judicial 
Department during the 1989-90 fiscal year. 

Caseload 

Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 
128,215 cases were filed in the superior courts during 
1989-90, an increase of 10,027 cases (8.5%) from the total 
of 118,188 cases that were filed in 1988-89. There were 
increases in filings in all case categories: civil cases 
(10.4%), felony cases (11.2%), and misdemeanor cases 
(3.0%). 

Superior court case dispositions increased from 
1 1 1,278 in 1988-89 to 1 17,787 in 1989-90. Dispositions of 
civil cases and felony cases increased (by 7.7% and 9.4% 
respectively), while misdemeanor dispositions decreased 
slightly (by 0.6%). 

More detailed information on the flow of cases 
through the superior courts is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



34 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 



(As of June 30, 1990) 



District 

1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City 
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 
John R. Parker, Manteo 

2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington 
Samuel G. Grimes, Washington 
James W. Hardison, Williamston 

3 E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville 
David A. Leech, Greenville 

Willie L. Lumpkin, III, Morehead City 
James E. Martin, Grifton 
James E. Ragan, III, Oriental 
H. Horton Rountree, Greenville 
Wilton R. Duke, Jr., Greenville 

4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill 
William M. Cameron, Jr., Jacksonville 
Wayne G. Kimble, Jr., Jacksonville 
Leonard W. Thagard, Clinton 
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville 

5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington 
Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington 
Charles E. Rice, III, Wilmington 

Elton Glenn Tucker, Wilmington 
John W. Smith, II, Wilmington 

6A Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck 

6B Robert E. Williford, Lewiston 
James D. Riddick, III, Como 

7 George Britt, Tarboro 
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson 
Quentin T. Sumner, Rocky Mount 
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson 
Sarah F. Patterson, Rocky Mount 

8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston 
Kenneth R. Ellis, Goldsboro 
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston 
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro 
Joseph E. Setzer, Jr., Goldsboro 

9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford 

H. Weldon Lloyd, Jr., Henderson 
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton 
Charles W. Wilkinson, Jr., Oxford 

10 George F. Bason, Raleigh 
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh 
William A. Creech, Raleigh 
James R. Fullwood, Raleigh 
Joyce A. Hamilton, Raleigh 
Jerry W. Leonard, Raleigh 
Fred M. Morelock, Raleigh 
Louis W. Payne, Jr., Raleigh 
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh 
Donald W. Overby, Raleigh 



District 

1 1 William A. Christian, Sanford 
Samuel S. Stephenson, Angier 
Edward H. McCormick, Lillington 
O. Henry Willis, Jr., Dunn 
Tyson Y. Dobson, Jr., Smithfield 

12 Sol G. Cherry, Fayetteville 
John S. Hair, Jr., Fayetteville 
James F. Ammons, Jr., Fayetteville 
A. Elizabeth Keever, Fayetteville 
Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville 

13 William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville 
D. Jack Hooks, Jr., Whiteville 
Jerry A. Jolly, Tabor City 
David G. Wall, Elizabethtown 

14 Kenneth C. Titus, Durham 
Richard Chaney, Durham 
William Y. Manson, Durham 
Carolyn D. Johnson, Durham 
David Q. LaBarre, Durham 

15 A James K. Washburn, Burlington 
Spencer B. Ennis, Burlington 
Ernest J. Harviel, Burlington 

15B Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill 
Lowry M. Betts, Pittsboro 
Stanley S. Peele, Chapel Hill 

16A Warren L. Pate, Raeford 

William C. Mcllwain, III, Wagram 

16B Charles G. McLean, Lumberton 
Robert F. Floyd, Jr., Fairmont 
J. Stanley Carmical, Lumberton 
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton 
Gary L. Locklear, Pembroke 

17A Peter M. McHugh, Wentworth 
Robert R. Blackwell, Yanceyville 
Philip W. Allen, Yanceyville 

17B Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy 
Clarence W. Carter, King 

18 J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro 
Sherry F. Alloway, Greensboro 
Donald L. Boone, High Point 
William L. Daisy, Greensboro 
Edmund Lowe, High Point 
Lawrence C. McSwain, Greensboro 
Thomas G. Foster, Jr., Greensboro 
William A. Vaden, Greensboro 
Joseph E. Turner, Greensboro 

19A Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord 

Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis 



The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



35 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1990) 



District 

19B William M. Neely, Asheboro 
Richard M. Toomes, Asheboro 
Vance B. Long, Asheboro 

19C Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury 
Robert M. Davis, Salisbury 

20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro 
Michael E. Beale, Pinehurst 
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle 
Kenneth W. Honeycutt, Monroe 
Tanya T. Wallace, Rockingham 

21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem 
Loretta C. Biggs, Kernersville 
James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem 
Roland H. Hayes, Winston-Salem 
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem 
William B. Reingold, Winston-Salem 
Margaret L. Sharpe, Winston-Salem 

22 Robert W. Johnson, Statesville 
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville 
George T. Fuller, Lexington 
Kimberly T. Harbinson, Taylorsville 
William G. Ijames, Jr., Mocksville 

23 Samuel L. Osborne, Wilkesboro 
Edgar B. Gregory, Wilkesboro 
Michael E. Helms, Wilkesboro 

24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland 
Charles P. Ginn, Boone 

R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk 

25 L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory 
Ronald E. Bogle, Hickory 
Robert E. Hodges, Morganton 
Jonathan L. Jones, Valdese 
Timothy S. Kincaid, Newton 
Nancy L. Einstein, Lenoir 



District 

26 



27A 



27B 



James E. Lanning, Charlotte 
Marilyn R. Bissell, Charlotte 
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte 
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte 
Richard A. Elkins, Charlotte 
H. Brent McKnight, Charlotte 
Resa L. Harris, Charlotte 
Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte 
William G. Jones, Charlotte 
H. William Constangy, Jr., Charlotte 
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte 
Richard D. Boner, Charlotte 

Larry B. Langson, Gastonia 
Daniel J. Walton, Gastonia 
Harley B. Gaston, Jr., Belmont 
Timothy L. Patti, Gastonia 
Catherine C. Stevens, Gastonia 

George W. Hamrick, Shelby 
James T. Bowen, III, Lincolnton 
J. Keaton Fonvielle, Shelby 



28 Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden 
Gary S. Cash, Fletcher 
Robert L. Harrell, Asheville 
Peter L. Roda, Asheville 

29 Loto G. Caviness, Marion 
Stephen F. Franks, Hendersonville 
Robert S. Cilley, Brevard 
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville 

30 John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy 
Steven J. Bryant, Bryson City 
Danny E. Davis, Waynesville 



*The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



36 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES 



The Association of District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1990) 

Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston, President 

Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory, Vice-President 

Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill, Secretary-Treasurer 

E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville 
Warren L. Pate, Raeford 
Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy 
Charles P. Ginn, Boone 
W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham 
A. Elizabeth Keever, Fayetteville 

Additional Executive Committee Members 




Judge Rodney R. Goodman 



37 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
The District Courts 



North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with 
original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of the 
cases handled by the State's court system. There were 
164 district court judges serving in 37 district court 
districts during 1989-90. These judges are elected to four- 
year terms by the voters of their respective districts. 

A total of 654 magistrate positions were authorized as 
of June 30. 1990. Of this number, about 60 positions 
were specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed 
by the senior resident superior court judge from nomina- 
tions submitted by the clerk of superior court of their 
county, and they are supervised by the chief district 
court judge of their district. 

Jurisdiction 

The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtual- 
ly all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in 
felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary com- 
mitments and recommitments to mental hospitals, and 
domestic relations cases. Effective September 1, 1986, 
the General Assembly decriminalized many minor traffic 
offenses. Such offenses, previously charged as misde- 
meanors, are now "infractions," defined as non-criminal 
violations of law not punishable by imprisonment. The 
district court division has original jurisdiction for all 
infraction cases. The district courts have concurrent 
jurisdiction with the superior courts in general civil 
cases, but the district courts are the proper courts for the 
trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy is 
SI 0.000 or less. Upon the plaintiffs request, a civil case 
in which the amount in controversy is $2,000 or less, may 
be designated a "small claims" case and assigned by the 
chief district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. 
Magistrates are empowered to try worthless check crim- 
inal cases as directed by the chief district court judge 
when the value of the check does not exceed $1,000. In 
addition, they may accept written appearances, waivers 
of trial, and pleas of guilty in certain littering cases, and 
in worthless check cases when the amount of the check is 
SI, 000 or less, the offender has made restitution, and the 
offender has fewer than four previous worthless check 
convictions. Magistrates may accept waivers of appear- 
ance and pleas of guilty or admissions of responsibility 
in misdemeanor or infraction cases involving traffic, 
alcohol, boating, hunting and fishing violation cases, for 
which a uniform schedule of fines has been adopted by 
the Conference of Chief District Court Judges. Magis- 
trates also conduct initial hearings to fix conditions of 
release for arrested defendants, and they are empowered 
to issue arrest and search warrants. 

Administration 

A chief district court judge is appointed for each 



district court district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court from among the elected judges in the respective 
districts. Subject to the Chief Justice's general super- 
vision, each chief judge exercises administrative super- 
vision and authority over the operation of the district 
courts and magistrates in the district. Each chief judge is 
responsible for scheduling sessions of district court and 
assigning judges, supervising the calendaring of non- 
criminal cases, assigning matters to magistrates, making 
arrangements for court reporting and jury trials in civil 
cases, and supervising the discharge of clerical functions 
in the district courts. 

The chief district court judges meet in conference at 
least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual con- 
ference adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and 
fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks 
of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance, 
guilty pleas, and admissions of responsibility. 

Expenditures 

Total expenditures for the operation of the district 
courts in 1989-90 amounted to $32,796,473. (Expendi- 
tures data for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and 
benefits) for state employees for June 1990. The June 
1990 payroll was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal 
1990-91. As a result, "total" expenditure data for 1989- 
90 are not comparable to such data for prior years.) 
Included in this total are the personnel costs of court 
reporters and secretaries as well as the personnel costs of 
the 164 district court judges and 654 magistrates. The 
1989-90 total is 17.4% of the General Fund expenditures 
for the operation of the entire Judicial Department, 
compared to an 18.2% share of total Judicial Department 
expenditures for the district courts in the 1988-89 fiscal 
year. 

Caseload 

During 1989-90 the statewide total number of district 
court filings (civil and criminal) increased by 66,713 
cases (3.0%) over the total number reported for 1988-89. 
Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital 
commitment hearings, a total of 2,270,456 cases were 
filed in 1989-90. Civil magistrate filings decreased by 
15,457 cases (5.0%), from 308,029 in 1988-89 to 292,572 
in 1989-90. Filings of infraction cases also decreased, by 
8,522 cases ( 1 .3%), from 678, 1 89 in 1988-89 to 669,667 in 
1989-90. There were significant increases in filings of all 
other district court case categories. Filings of criminal 
non-motor vehicle cases increased by 46,438 cases (8.3%), 
filings of civil non-magistrate cases increased by 10,378 
cases (8.0%), and filings of criminal motor vehicle cases 
increased by 29,014 cases (6.2%). 



38 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
The District Courts 



The Conference of Chief District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1990) 

Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids, President 

( Vice-President vacant) 

George W. Hamrick, Shelby, Secretary-Treasurer 




Judge Nicholas Long 



39 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

(As of June 30, 1990) 



Prosecutorial 
District 

1 H. P. WILLIAMS, JR., Elizabeth City 

2 MITCHELL D. NORTON, Washington 
3A THOMAS D. HAIGWOOD, Greenville 
3B WILLIAM D. McFADYEN, New Bern 

4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville 

5 JERRY L. SPIVEY, Wilmington 
6A JIMMIE R. BARNES, Halifax 

6B DAVID H. BEARD, JR., Murfreesboro 

7 HOWARD S. BONEY, JR., Tarboro 

8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro 

9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford 

10 C. COLON WILLOUGHBY, JR., Raleigh 

1 1 JOHN W. TWISDALE, Smithfield 

1 2 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 

1 3 MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Bolivia 

14 RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham 
15A STEVE A. BALOG, Graham 

15B CARL R. FOX, Pittsboro 

16A JEAN E. POWELL, Raeford 



Prosecutorial 
District 

16B JOHN R. TOWNSEND, Lumberton 

17A THURMAN B. HAMPTON, Wentworth 

17B HAROLD D. BOWMAN, Dobson 

18 HORACE M. KIMEL, JR., Greensboro 

19A JAMES E. ROBERTS, Concord 

19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro 

20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe 

21 W. WARREN SPARROW, Winston-Salem 

22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington 

23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro 

24 JAMES THOMAS RUSHER, Boone 

25 ROBERT E. THOMAS, Newton 

26 PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte 
27A CALVIN B. HAMRICK, Gastonia 
27B WILLIAM C. YOUNG, Shelby 

28 ROBERT W. FISHER, Asheville 

29 ALAN C. LEONARD, Rutherfordton 

30 ROY H. PATTON, JR., Waynesville 



40 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
The District Attorneys 



The Conference of District Attorneys 

(Executive Committee as of June 30, 1990) 

H. P. Williams, Jr., President 

W. David McFadyen, Jr., President- Elect 

C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., Vice-President 

Ronald L. Stephens 

Thomas D. Haigwood 

Calvin B. Hamrick 

Horace M. Kimel 



The District Attorneys Association 

(Officers as of June 30, 1990) 

H. P. Williams, Jr., Elizabeth City, President 
W. David McFadyen, Jr., New Bern, President- Elect 
C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., Raleigh, Vice-President 
Nancy B. Lamb, Elizabeth City, Secretary- Treasurer 





District Attorney 
H. P. Williams, Jr. 



41 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
The District Attorneys 



The State is divided into 37 prosecutorial districts 
« hich. \\ ith two exceptions, correspond to the 37 district 
court districts. The counties in District Court District 3 
make up two separate prosecutorial districts, Prosecu- 
torial Districts 3A and 3B. The counties in District 
Court Districts 19A and 19C comprise single Prosecu- 
torial District 19A. Prosecutorial Districts are shown on 
the map in Part II of this Report. A district attorney is 
elected by the voters in each of the 37 districts for four- 
year terms. 

Duties 

The district attorney represents the State in all criminal 
actions brought in the superior and district courts in the 
district, and is responsible for ensuring that infraction 
cases are prosecuted efficiently. In addition to prosecu- 
torial functions, the district attorney is responsible for 
calendaring criminal cases for trial. 

Resources 

Each district attorney may employ on a full-time basis 
the number of assistant district attorneys authorized by 
statute for the district. As of June 30, 1990, a total of 250 
assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 37 
prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 
26 (Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff (20 
assistants) and the district attorney of three districts 
(Districts 6 A, 6B, and 16 A) had the smallest staff (two 
assistants). 

Each district attorney is authorized to employ an 
administrative assistant to aid in preparing cases for trial 
and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district 
attorney in 18 districts is authorized to employ an 
investigatorial assistant who aids in the investigation of 
cases prior to trial. All district attorneys are authorized 
to employ at least one victim and witness assistant. 



Expenditures 

A total of $21,007,347 was expended in 1989-90 for 
the 37 district attorney offices. In addition, a total of 
S95.644 was expended for the District Attorney's Con- 
ference and its staff. (Expenditures data for 1989-90 do 
not include payroll (salary and benefits) for state em- 
ployees for June 1990. The June 1990 payroll was 
disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal 1990-91. As a 
result, "total" expenditure data for 1989-90 are not 
comparable to such data for prior years.) 

1989-1990 Caseload 

A total of 108,784 criminal cases was filed in the 
superior courts during 1989-90, consisting of 69,810 
felony cases and 38,974 misdemeanor cases; all but 6,087 
of the misdemeanors were appeals from the district 
courts. The total number of criminal filings in the 



superior courts in 1988-89 was 100,587. The increase of 
8,197 cases in 1989-90 represents an 8.1% increase over 
the 1988-89 total. 

A total of 99,858 criminal cases was disposed of in the 
superior courts during 1989-90. There were 63,920 felony 
dispositions, and 35,938 misdemeanor dispositions. In 
1989-90, total criminal case dispositions increased by 
5,233 cases (5.5%) over the 94,625 cases disposed of in 
1988-89. 

The median ages of criminal cases at disposition in the 
superior courts during 1989-90 were 86 days for felony 
cases and 76 days for misdemeanors. In 1988-89, the 
median age of felony cases at disposition was 85 days, 
and the median age at disposition for misdemeanor cases 
was 72 days. 

The number of criminal cases disposed of by jury trial 
in the superior courts increased from 2,830 in 1988-89 to 
3,093 in 1989-90. As in past years, the proportion of total 
criminal cases disposed by jury was small, 3.0% in 1988- 
89 and 3.1% in 1989-90. However, the relatively small 
number of cases disposed by jury requires a great propor- 
tion of the superior court time and resources devoted to 
handling the criminal caseload. 

In contrast, in 1989-90 a majority (53,833 or 53.9%) of 
criminal case dispositions in superior courts were pro- 
cessed on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a trial. 
This percentage represents a slight decrease from the 
proportion of guilty plea dispositions reported for 1988- 
89 (54.3%). 

"Dismissal by district attorney" accounted for a signif- 
icant percentage of all criminal case dispositions during 
1989-90, a total of 27,854 cases, or 27.9% of all disposi- 
tions. This proportion is comparable to that reported for 
prior years. Many of the dismissals involved the situation 
of two or more cases pending against the same defendant, 
where the defendant pleads guilty to some charges and 
other charges are dismissed. 

The total number of cases disposed of in the superior 
courts was 8,926 cases less than the total number of cases 
filed in 1989-90. Consequently, the number of criminal 
cases pending in superior court increased from 35,529 at 
the beginning of the fiscal year, to a total pending at 
year's end of 44,455, an increase of 25.1%. 

The median age of pending felony cases in the superior 
courts increased from 91 days on June 30, 1989, to 96 
days on June 30, 1990. The median age of pending mis- 
demeanors increased from 79 days on June 30, 1989, to 
93 days on June 30, 1990. 

In the district courts, a total of 1,769,653 criminal 
cases and infractions was filed during 1989-90. This total 
consisted of 496,658 criminal motor vehicle cases, 
669,667 infraction cases, and 603,328 criminal non- 
motor vehicle cases. A comparison of total filings in 
1989-90 with total filings in 1988-89 (1,702,723) reveals 
an increase in district court criminal and infraction 
filings of 66,930 cases, or 3.9%. Filings of non-motor 
vehicle cases rose by 46,438 cases (8.3%), from 556,890 
cases in 1988-89 to 603,328 cases in 1989-90. Filings of 



42 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 



motor vehicle plus infraction cases increased by 20,492 
cases (1.8%), from 1,145,833 in 1988-89 to 1,166,325 in 
1989-90. 

Total dispositions of motor vehicle and infraction 
cases in the district courts amounted to 1,134,277 cases 
during 1989-90 (459,612 motor vehicle dispositions and 
674,665 infraction dispositions). As in prior years, a sub- 
stantial portion of such cases are disposed by waiver of 
appearance and entry of pleas of guilty (or "responsibil- 
ity" in infraction cases) before a clerk or magistrate. 
During 1989-90, 500,990 (44.2%) of motor vehicle and 
infraction cases were disposed by waiver. This substan- 
tial number of cases did not, of course, require action by 
the district attorneys' offices and should not be regarded 
as having been a part of the district attorneys' caseload. 
The remaining 633,287 infraction and motor vehicle 
cases (270,798 infraction and 362,489 motor vehicle 
cases) were disposed by means other than waiver. This 
balance was 65,203 cases (or 11.5%) more than the 
568,084 non-waiver motor vehicle and infraction dispo- 
sitions in 1988-89. 

With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case dispo- 
sitions, a total of 586,438 such cases was disposed of in 
district courts in 1989-90. As with superior court criminal 



cases, the most frequent method of disposition was by 
entry of guilty plea; the next most frequent was dismissal 
by the district attorney. A total of 209,549 cases, or 
35.7% of the dispositions was by guilty pleas. An addi- 
tional 166,550 cases, or 28.4% of the total were disposed 
of by prosecutor dismissal. The remaining cases were 
disposed of by waiver (10.0%), trial (7.1%), as a felony 
probable cause matter ( 10.0%), or by other means (8.7%). 

During 1989-90, the median age at disposition of non- 
motor vehicle criminal cases was 33 days, compared to a 
median age at disposition for these cases in 1988-89 of 30 
days. 

During 1989-90, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle 
cases in the district courts exceeded dispositions by 
16,890 cases. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal 
cases pending at year's end was 130,841, compared with 
a total of 1 13,951 that were pending at the beginning of 
the year, an increase of 16,890 (14.8%) in the number of 
pending cases. The median age for pending non-motor 
vehicle cases increased from 58 days on June 30, 1989, to 
65 days on June 30, 1990. 

Additional information on the criminal caseloads in 
superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



43 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

(As of June 30, 1990) 



COUNTY 


CLERK OF COURT 


COUNTY 


CLERK OF COURT 


Alamance 


Louise B. Wilson 


Johnston 


Will R. Crocker 


Alexander 


Seth Chapman 


Jones 


Ronald H. Metts 


Alleghany 


Rebecca J. Gambill 


Lee 


Lucille H. York 


Anson 


R. Frank Hightower 


Lenoir 


Claude C. Davis 


Ashe 


Jerry L. Roten 


Lincoln 


Pamela C. Huskey 


Avery 


Robert F. Taylor 


Macon 


Anna I. Carson 


Beaufort 


Thomas S. Payne, III 


Madison 


James W. Cody 


Bertie 


John Tyler 


Martin 


Phyllis G. Pearson 


Bladen 


Hilda H. Coleman 


McDowell 


Ruth B. Williams 


Brunswick 


Diana R. Morgan 


Mecklenburg 


Robert M. Blackburn 


Buncombe 


J. Ray Elingburg 


Mitchell 


Linda D. Woody 


Burke 


Major A. Joines 


Montgomery 


Charles M. Johnson 


Cabarrus 


Estus B. White 


Moore 


Rachel H. Comer 


Caldwell 


Jeanette Turner 


Nash 


Rachel M. Joyner 


Camden 


Catherine W. McCoy 


New Hanover 


Louise D. Rehder 


Carteret 


Darlene Leonard 


Northampton 


R. Jennings White, Jr. 


Caswell 


Janet H. Cobb 


Onslow 


Everitte Barbee 


Catawba 


Phyllis B. Hicks 


Orange 


Shirley L. James 


Chatham 


Janice Oldham 


Pamlico 


Mary Jo Potter 


Cherokee 


Rose Mary Crooke 


Pasquotank 


Frances W. Thompson 


Chowan 


Marjorie H. Hollowell 


Pender 


Frances D. Basden 


Clay 


James H. McClure 


Perquimans 


Lois G. Godwin 


Cleveland 


Ruth S. Dedmon 


Person 


W. Thomas Humphries 


Columbus 


Lacy R. Thompson 


Pitt 


Sandra Gaskins 


Craven 


Jean W. Boyd 


Polk 


Judy P. Arledge 


Cumberland 


George T. Griffin 


Randolph 


Lynda B. Skeen 


Currituck 


Sheila R. Doxey 


Richmond 


Catherine S. Wilson 


Dare 


Betty Mann 


Robeson 


Dixie I. Barrington 


Davidson 


Martha S. Nicholson 


Rockingham 


Frankie C. Williams 


Davie 


Delores C. Jordan 


Rowan 


Edward P. Norvell 


Duplin 


John A. Johnson 


Rutherford 


Keith H. Melton 


Durham 


James Leo Carr 


Sampson 


Charlie T. McCullen 


Edgecombe 


Curtis Weaver 


Scotland 


C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr 


Forsyth 


Frances P. Storey 


Stanly 


David R. Fisher 


Franklin 


Ralph S. Knott 


Stokes 


Pauline Kirkman 


Gaston 


Betty B. Jenkins 


Surry 


David J. Beal 


Gates 


Terry L. Riddick 


Swain 


Sara Robinson 


Graham 


0. W. Hooper, Jr. 


Transylvania 


Marian M. McMahon 


Granville 


Mary Ruth C. Nelms 


Tyrrell 


Nathan T. Everett 


Greene 


Joyce L. Harrell 


Union 


Nola H. McCollum 


Guilford 


Barbara G. Washington 


Vance 


Lucy Longmire 


Halifax 


Ellen C. Neathery 


Wake 


John M. Kennedy 


Harnett 


Georgia Lee Brown 


Warren 


Richard E. Hunter, Jr. 


Haywood 


William G. Henry 


Washington 


Timothy L. Spear 


Henderson 


Thomas H. Thompson 


Watauga 


John T. Bingham 


Hertford 


Sheila Banks 


Wayne 


David B. Brantly 


Hoke 


Juanita Edmund 


Wilkes 


Wayne Roope 


Hyde 


Lenora R. Bright 


Wilson 


John L. Whitley 


Iredell 


Angelia T. Roberts 


Yadkin 


Harold J. Long 


Jackson 


Frank Watson, Jr. 


Yancey 


F. Warren Hughes 



44 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
The Clerks of Superior Court 



Association of Clerks of Superior Court 

(Officers as of June 30, 1990) 

J. Ray Elingburg, Buncombe County 
President 

Judy Arledge, Polk County 
First Vice-President 

C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr., Scotland County 
Second Vice-President 

Georgia L. Brown, Harnett County 
Secretary 

Thomas H. Thompson, Henderson County 
Treasurer 




J. Ray Elingburg 



45 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
The Clerks of Superior Court 



A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for a four-year 
term by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 
counties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide 
special proceedings and is, ex officio, judge of probate, 
in addition to performing record-keeping and adminis- 
trative functions for both the superior and district courts 
of the county. 

Jurisdiction 

The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court 
includes the probate of wills and administration of 
decedents' estates. It also includes such "special proceed- 
ings" as adoptions, condemnations of private property 
under the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings 
to establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain pro- 
ceedings to administer the estates of minors and incom- 
petent adults. The right of appeal from the clerks' 
judgments in such cases lies to the superior court. 

The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue 
search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and 
other process necessary to execute the judgments entered 
in the superior and district courts of the county. For 
certain offenses and infractions, the clerk is authorized 
to accept defendants' waivers of appearance and pleas of 
guilty or admissions of responsibility and to impose 
penalties or fines in accordance with a schedule estab- 
lished by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges. 

Administration 

The clerk of superior court performs administrative 
duties for both the superior and district courts of the 
county. Among these duties are the maintenance of 
court records and indexes, the control and accounting of 
funds, and the furnishing of information to the Adminis- 
trative Office of the Courts. 

In most counties, the clerk continues to perform 
certain functions related to preparation of civil case 
calendars, and in many counties, the clerk's staff assists 
the district attorney in preparing criminal case calendars 
as well. Policy and oversight responsibility for civil case 
calendaring is vested in the State's senior resident super- 
ior court judges and chief district court judges. However, 



day-to-day civil calendar preparation is the clerk's 
responsibility in all districts except those served by trial 
court administrators. 

Expenditures 

A total of $56,856,236 was expended in 1989-90 for 
the operation of the 100 clerk of superior court offices. 
In addition to the salaries and other expenses of the 
clerks and their staffs, this total includes expenditures 
for jurors' fees and witness expenses. (Expenditures data 
for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and benefits) 
for state employees for June 1990. The June 1990 payroll 
was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal 1990-91. As a 
result, "total" expenditure data for 1989-90 are not 
comparable to such data for prior years.) 

Total expenditures for clerk's offices in 1989-90 
amounted to 30.2% of the General Fund expenditures 
for the operations of the entire Judicial Department. 

1989-90 Caseload 

During 1989-90, estate case filings totalled 46,832, 
which was a slight decrease (0.3%) from the 46,992 estate 
cases filed in 1988-89. Estate case dispositions totalled 
45,330 in 1989-90, or 1.6% more than the previous year's 
total of 44,609. 

A total of 47,742 special proceedings was filed before 
the 100 clerks of superior court in 1989-90. This is an 
increase of 1,337 cases (2.9%) from the 46,405 filings in 
the previous fiscal year. Special proceedings dispositions 
totalled 39,171 cases, 4.9% less than the previous year's 
total of 4 1,203. 

The clerks of superior court are also responsible for 
handling the records of all case filings and dispositions in 
the superior and district courts. The total number of 
superior court case filings during the 1989-90 year was 
1 28,2 1 5 and the total number of district court filings, not 
including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital 
commitment hearings, was 2,270,456. 

More detailed information on the estates and special 
proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



46 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 



THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



As part of the unified judicial system, the N.C. Consti- 
tution (Article IV, Section 15) provides for "an adminis- 
trative office of the courts to carry out the provisions of 
this Article." The General Assembly has established the 
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) as the admin- 
istrative arm of the Judicial Branch. 

The Director of AOC (also referred to as the Adminis- 
trative Officer of the Courts) is appointed by and serves at 
the pleasure of the Chief Justice of the North Carolina 
Supreme Court. The Director has the duty to carry out 
the many functions and responsibilities assigned by 
statute to the Director or to AOC. 

The Assistant Director of AOC is also appointed by the 
Chief Justice, and serves as the administrative assistant to 
the Chief Justice. The duties of the Assistant Director 
include assisting the Chief Justice regarding assignment 
of superior court judges, assisting the Supreme Court in 
preparing calendars of superior court sessions, and 
performing such other duties as may be assigned by the 
Chief Justice or the Director of AOC. 

The basic responsibility of AOC is to maintain an 
efficient and effective court system by providing adminis- 
trative support statewide for the courts and for court- 
related offices. Among AOC's specific duties are to estab- 
lish fiscal policies for and prepare and administer the 
budget of the Judicial Branch; prescribe uniform admin- 
istrative and business methods, forms, and records to be 
used by the clerks of superior court statewide; procure 
and distribute equipment, books, forms, and supplies for 
the court system; collect, compile, and publish statistical 
data and other information on the judicial and financial 
operations of the courts and related offices; determine the 
state of the dockets, evaluate the practices and procedures 
of the courts, and make recommendations for improve- 
ment of the operations of the court system; investigate, 
make recommendations concerning, and provide assist- 
ance to county authorities regarding the securing of 
adequate physical facilities for the courts; administer the 
payroll and other personnel-related needs of all Judicial 
Branch employees; carry out administrative duties 
relating to programs for representation for indigents; 
arrange for the printing and distribution of the published 
opinions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals; 
and perform numerous other duties and responsibilities, 
including production of this Annual Report. 

AOC is organized into eight divisions plus an Office of 
Legal Counsel and an Administrator of special projects. 
The operations of the Juvenile Services Division, relating 
to juvenile probation and aftercare, and the Office of 
Guardian ad Litem Services, relating to provision of 
guardians ad litem for juveniles, are summarized on 
following pages of this Report. 

The Office of Legal Counsel advises and assists the 
Director of AOC with contractual and other legal matters 



affecting AOC and court operations, and with review of 
and recommendations concerning legislation that may 
impact the courts. 

The Court Services Division identifies, develops, imple- 
ments, and administers programs and procedures for 
supporting the day-to-day administrative operations of 
the trial courts in all 100 counties. Court offices and 
programs supported by the Court Services Division 
include the clerks of superior court, trial court admin- 
istrators, court reporters, indigency screeners, and alter- 
native dispute resolution programs. Among its other 
activities, the Court Services Division has primary 
responsibility for the maintenance and distribution of 
forms, and develops procedures and provides technical 
assistance in such areas as jury management, case calen- 
daring and monitoring, facility planning, training pro- 
grams, and records management, including the micro- 
filming and archiving of records. 

The Fiscal Services Division assists the Director of 
AOC with preparation and management of the budget for 
the entire Judicial Branch. This Division's responsibilities 
include collecting, processing, and disbursing all Judicial 
Branch funds, including court costs and fees, indigents' 
attorney fee payments and judgments, and sales of equip- 
ment and publications; processing the payrolls of all 
Judicial Branch employees; and developing and imple- 
menting accounting and auditing systems. 

The Information Services Division of AOC evaluates, 
plans, programs for, implements, and administers the 
information processing needs of the Judicial Branch. In 
addition to support for the personal computer operations 
of AOC and court offices, the Information Services 
Division develops and maintains the Court Information 
System (CIS). The CIS includes computer-based and 
manual data collection and data entry systems, providing 
comprehensive statewide mainframe-based data pro- 
cessing for civil and criminal case data (including the data 
reported in this Annual Report), financial bookkeeping 
and accounting systems, and data-sharing coordination 
with other state agencies. In addition to maintenance of a 
24-hour help desk, the Information Services Division 
prepares and distributes periodic and special reports of 
case processing and other statistical data. 

The Personnel Division administers the salary, benefits, 
and other personnel-related affairs of the Judicial Branch, 
makes recommendations to the Director of AOC con- 
cerning the pay scales and classification of employees, 
conducts or arranges for training of AOC employees and 
managers, and carries out numerous other duties to 
enhance the recruitment, retention, productivity, and 
satisfaction of AOC and other Judicial Branch employees. 

The Purchasing Services Division procures all equip- 
ment, supplies, law books, publications, printing, binding, 
and contractual and other services for the Judicial Branch. 



47 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 



The responsibilities of the Purchasing Services Division 
include oversight of the competitive bidding system in 
coordination with the Department of Administration, 
administration of Judicial Branch mail and telecommuni- 
cation services, management of the AOC print shop, 
maintenance of the AOC fixed asset system, and 
contracting for and handling of services for equipment 
maintenance. 

The Research and Planning Division evaluates the 
practices, procedures, operations, and organization of the 
court system, and makes recommendations to the Direc- 
tor of AOC regarding how the court system might best 
respond to present and future needs. On request of the 
AOC Director, the Research and Planning Division eval- 
uates the impact of proposed legislation or other propo- 
sals that may impact court operations, provides assistance 
and oversight for the production of AOC publications, 
and provides assistance to the counties in the evaluation 



of and planning for adequate physical facilities. 

The Special Projects Administrator, in coordination 
with other AOC divisions, develops, implements and 
manages special studies or projects in diverse areas of 
court operations, as requested by the Director of AOC. 

A total of $14,618,914 was expended for AOC opera- 
tions during 1989-90, representing 7.8% of total Judicial 
Branch expenditures. Of the total $14,618,914, 65.9% 
($9,640,710) was expended for the operations of and 
computer equipment purchased through the Information 
Services Division; this large percentage share for Infor- 
mation Services in 1989-90 includes purchase of a new 
mainframe computer for the statewide CIS system. The 
remaining 34. 1% ($4,978,204) of total AOC expenditures 
was for other AOC operations, including a total of 
$405,342 for operation of the AOC warehouse and print 
shop. 



Administrative Office of the Courts 

(As of June 30, 1990) 

Franklin Freeman, Jr., Director 
Dallas A. Cameron, Jr., Assistant Director 
W. Robert Atkinson, Assistant to the Director 
Diane Divine, Executive Assistant 

Division Administrators: 

Thomas J. Andrews, Counsel 
Daniel Becker, Court Services 
Christopher A. Marks, Fiscal Services 
Virginia G. Weisz, Guardian ad Litem Services 
Francis J. Taillefer, Information Services 
Thomas A. Danek, Juvenile Services 
Ivan Hill, Personnel Services 
Douglas Pearson, Purchasing Services 
Robert E. Giles, Research and Planning* 
John Taylor, Special Projects 




'■ Robert E. Giles retired effective January 1, 1990. 



Franklin Freeman, Jr. 



48 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
Juvenile Services Division 



The Juvenile Services Division of the Administrative 
Office of the Courts provides intake, probation and 
aftercare services to juveniles who are before the District 
Courts for delinquent matters, i.e., violations of the 
criminal code, including motor vehicle violations, and 
for undisciplined matters, such as running away from 
home, being truant, and being beyond the parents' 
disciplinary control. 

Intake is the screening of complaints alleging delin- 
quent or undisciplined behavior by children, to deter- 
mine whether petitions should be filed. During the 1989- 
90 fiscal year a total of 32,743 complaints were brought 
to the attention of intake counselors. Of this number, 
23,023 (70%) were approved for filing, and 9,920 (30%) 
were not approved for filing. 

Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of chil- 
dren in their own communities. Probation is authorized 
by judicial order. Aftercare service is provided for 
juveniles after their release from a training school. 
(Protective supervision is also a form of court-ordered 
supervision within the community; this service is com- 
bined with probation and aftercare.) 

In 1989-90 a total of 14,656 juveniles were supervised 
in the probation and aftercare program. 



Expenditures 

The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The 
expenditures for fiscal year 1989-90 totalled $12,220,901. 
(Expenditures data for 1989-90 do not include payroll 
(salary and benefits) for state employees for June 1990. 
The June 1990 payroll was disbursed in July 1990, which 
is fiscal 1 990-9 1 . As a result, "total" expenditure data for 
1989-90 are not comparable to such data for prior years.) 
The 1989-90 expenditures amounted to 6.5% of all 
General Fund expenditures for the operation of the 
entire Judicial Department, about the same percentage 
share of total Judicial Department expenditures for the 
Division as in the previous fiscal year. 

Administration 

The Administrator of the Juvenile Services Division is 
appointed by the Director of the Administrative Office 
of the Courts. A chief court counselor is appointed for 
each judicial district by the Administrator of the Juvenile 
Services Division, with the approval of the Chief District 
Court Judge and the Administrative Officer of the 
Courts. Subject to the Administrator's general super- 
vision, each chief court counselor exercises administra- 
tive supervision over the operation of the court coun- 
seling services in the respective districts. 



Juvenile Services Division Staff 
(As of June 30, 1990) 

Thomas A. Danek, Administrator 

Nancy C. Patteson, Area Administrator 

Edward F. Taylor, Area Administrator 

John T. Wilson, Area Administrator 

Rex B. Yates, Area Administrator 

M. Harold Rogerson, Jr., Program Specialist 

Arlene J. Kincaid, Administrative Officer 



49 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 



Juvenile Services Division 
(As of June 30, 1990) 



District Court 

District Chief Court Counselors 



1 


Donald Alexander 


: 


Joseph A. Paul 


3 


Eve C. Rogers 


4 


George Ashley 


5 


Phyllis Roebuck 


6A and 6B 


John R. Brady 


7 


Pam Honeycutt 


8 


Lynn C. Sasser 


^ 


Sherman Wilson 


1(1 


Larry C. Dix 


11 


Henry C. Cox 


12 


Phil T. Utley 


13 


Jimmy E. Godwin 


14 


Fred Elkins 


15A 


Harry L. Derr 


15B 


Donald Hargrove 


16A 


Alfred Bridges 



District Court 

District Chief Court Counselors 



16B 


Carey Collins 


17Aand 17B 


Martha M. Lauten 


18 


J. Manley Dodson 


19A 


Verne Brady 


19B and 19C 


James C. Queen 


20 


Jimmy L. Craig 


21 


James J. Weakland 


22 


Carl T. Duncan 


23 


C. Wayne Dixon 


24 


Lynn Hughes 


25 


Lee Cox 


26 


James A. Yancey 


27A 


Charles Reeves 


27B 


Gloria Newman 


28 


Louis Parrish 


29 


Kenneth E. Lanning 


30 


Betty G. Alley 



THE COURT COUNSELORS ASSOCIATION 
(Officers for 1989-90) 

Executive Committee Members 

Shirley Hudler, President 

Richard Alligood, President- Elect 

Walter Byrd, Secretary 

Karen Jones, Treasurer 

Diane Campbell, Parliamentarian 



Board Members 

1988-91 1989-92 



1987-90 

Gloria Newman 
Blake Belcher 
Charles Reeves 



Kathy Dudley 
Martha Lauten 
Wayne Arnold 



Joan Blanchard 
Ken Cooke 
Donald Roberts 




Shirley Hudler 



50 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services 



Program Services 

When a petition alleging abuse or neglect of a juvenile 
is filed in district court, the judge appoints a trained 
volunteer guardian ad litem and an attorney advocate to 
work together to represent the child's best interests. The 
attorney protects the child's legal rights while ensuring 
that the volunteer guardian has appropriate access to the 
court process. The trained volunteer investigates the 
child's situation and works with the attorney to report 
the child's needs to the court and to make recommen- 
dations for case disposition and any necessary continuing 
supervision until court intervention is no longer required. 
During 1989-90, a total of 1,51 1 volunteers were active in 
the North Carolina program and represented a total of 
8,161 abused and neglected children. These volunteers 
participated in 9,943 court hearings and gave approxi- 
mately 138,000 volunteer hours to casework and training 
in the State's guardian ad litem program. 

Expenditures 

During 1989-90, total expenditures for the guardian 
ad litem program amounted to $2,068,450. (Expenditures 
data for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and 
benefits) for state employees for June 1990. The June 
1990 payroll was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal 
1990-91. As a result, "total" expenditure data for 1989- 
90 are not comparable to such data for prior years.) Of 
this amount, $661,567 was for program attorney fees and 
$1,406,883 was for program administration. The total 
included reimbursement of volunteers' expense of 
$98,810 (covering 119,871 casework hours for 8,161 
abused and neglected children). In 1988-89, there were 
1,252 volunteers representing 6,519 children and pro- 
viding 107,512 casework hours with reimbursement 
expenses of $74,001. 

Administration 

The Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services, established 
by the General Assembly in 1983, is a division of the 
Administrative Office of the Courts. The Director of the 



Administrative Office of the Courts appoints the Admin- 
istrator of the Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services and 
appoints members of a Guardian Ad Litem Advisory 
Committee to work with the Administrator, who is 
responsible for planning and directing the guardian ad 
litem services program throughout the State. 

The Administrator is assisted by three regional admin- 
istrators, each of whom supervises the development and 
implementation of services for a group of districts, 
directing the local program, providing assistance in 
training programs for volunteers, and resolving opera- 
tional problems in the districts. 

A district administrator is employed for 30 of the 
State's 37 district court districts to recruit, screen, train 
and supervise volunteers. District administrators contact 
community groups, local agencies, the courts, and the 
media in order to develop volunteer participation, solicit 
support from key officials, provide public education 
about the program, and cultivate services for children. 
The district administrators plan an initial sixteen-hour 
training course for new volunteers, match children (who 
are before the courts) with volunteers, implement con- 
tinued training for experienced guardians, and provide 
supervision of, and consultation and support to, volun- 
teers. Other district administrator responsibilities are to 
ensure that in each case the attorney receives information 
from the volunteer assigned to the case and that the 
court receives timely oral or written reports each time a 
child's case is heard. (District administrators were not 
employed during 1989-90 for districts in which the 
caseload was too small to justify a district administrator 
position. In those districts, a contract attorney served as 
the coordinator and supervisor of the volunteer pro- 
gram.) 

Guardian Ad Litem Staff 
(As of June 30, 1990) 

Virginia C. Weisz, Administrator 

Alma Brown, Regional Administrator 

Cindy Mays, Regional Administrator 

Marilyn Stevens, Regional Administrator 



51 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 

Guardian ad Litem Division 
(As of June 30, 1990) 



istrict Court 




District 


District Administratoi 


1 


Veola Spivey 


2 


Jennifer Leggett 


3 


Carol Mattocks 


4 


Jean Hawley 


5 


Jane Blister 


6 


Patsey Moseley-Moss 


7 


Sandra Pittman 


8 


Claudia Kadis 


9 


Nina Freeman 


10 


Lloyd Inman 


12 


Brownie Smathers 


13 


Michele Rohde and 




Betty Buck 


14 


Cy Gurney 


15A 


Eleanor Ketcham 


15B 


Floyd Wicker 



istrict Court 




District 


District Administ 


16A 


Julie Miller 


16B 


Gladys Pierce 


18 


Sam Parrish 


19A/C 


Amy Collins 


19B 


Lee Malpass 


20 


Martha Sue Hall 


21 


Linda Garrou 


22 


Pam Ashmore 


25 


Anglea Phillips 


26 


Judi Strause 


27A 


Sindy Waggoner 


27B 


Betsy Sorrell 


28 


Jean Moore 


29 


Barbara King 


30 


Celia Larson 



52 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
Public Defenders 



During 1989-90, there were ten public defender offices 
in North Carolina, serving Defender Districts 3A, 3B, 
12, 15B, 16A, 16B, 18, 26, 27 A, and 28. Public defenders 
in all districts except 16B are appointed by the senior 
resident superior court judge of the superior court 
district or set of districts which includes the county or 
counties of the defender district; appointments are made 
from a list of not less than two and not more than three 
nominees submitted by written ballot of the licensed 
attorneys resident in the defender district.* Their terms 
are four years. Public defenders are entitled by statute to 
the numbers of full or part-time assistants and investi- 
gators as may be authorized by the Administrative 
Office of the Courts. 

Entitlement of Indigents to Counsel 

A person is "indigent" if "financially unable to secure 
legal representation." An indigent person is entitled to 
State-paid legal representation in the proceedings listed 
in G.S. 7A-451, including any case in which imprison- 
ment or a fine of $500 or more is likely to be adjudged; 
juvenile proceedings which may result in confinement, 
transfer to superior court for trial on a felony charge, or 
termination of parental rights; proceedings alleging 
mental illness or incapacity which may result in hospital- 
ization or sterilization; extradition proceedings; certain 
probation or parole revocation hearings; and certain 
requests for post-conviction relief from a criminal 
judgment. 

In defender districts, most representation of indigents 
is handled by the public defender's office. However, in 
certain circumstances, such as a potential conflict of 
interest, the court or the public defender may assign 
private counsel to represent an indigent. In areas of the 
state that are not served by a public defender office, 
indigents are represented by private counsel assigned by 
the court. 

Expenditures 

A total of $5,065,644 was expended for operation of 
the ten public defender offices during 1989-90. (Expendi- 
tures data for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and 
benefits) for state employees for June 1990. The June 
1990 payroll was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal 
1990-91. As a result, "total" expenditure data for 1989- 
90 are not comparable to such data for prior years.) 



1989-90 Caseload 

The ten public defender offices disposed of cases 
involving a total of 32,084 defendants during 1989-90. 
This was an increase of 3,721 defendants, or 13.1%, over 
the 28,363 defendants represented to disposition during 
1988-89. 

Additional information concerning the operation of 
these offices is found in Part III of this Annual Report. 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 
(As of June 30, 1990) 

District 3A (Pitt County) 

Robert L. Shoffner, Greenville 

District 3B (Carteret County) 
Henry C. Boshamer, Beaufort 

District 12 (Cumberland County) 
Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville 

District 15B (Orange and Chatham Counties) 
James E. Williams, Jr., Carrboro 

District 16A (Scotland and Hoke Counties) 
J. Graham King, Laurinburg 

District 16B (Robeson County) 
Angus B. Thompson, II, Lumberton 

District 18 (Guilford County) 

Wallace C. Harrelson, Greensboro 

District 26 (Mecklenburg County) 
Isabel S. Day, Charlotte 

District 27A (Gaston County) 

Rowell C. Cloninger, Jr., Gastonia 

District 28 (Buncombe County) 
J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville 



*The public defender in District 16B is appointed by the resident superior court judge of Superior Court District 16B other than the senior resident 
superior court judge, from a list of not less than three names submitted by written ballot of the licensed attorneys who reside in the district. 



53 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
Public Defenders 



The Association of Public Defenders 

(Officers as of June 30, 1990) 

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., President 
Paul Herzog, Vice-President 
Linda Mitchell, Secretary- Treasurer 




Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr. 



54 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 

The Office of the Appellate Defender 

(Staff as of June 30, 1990) 



Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender 

Assistant Appellate Defenders 
M. Patricia DeVine Mark D. Montgomery 



Benjamin Sendor 
Staples S. Hughes 
Teresa McHugh 



Daniel R. Pollitt 

M. Gordon Widenhouse 

Constance H. Everhart 



The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-funded program on October 1, 1981. (Prior to that 
date, appellate defender services were funded by a one- 
year federal grant.) The 1985 General Assembly made 
permanent the Appellate Defender Office by repealing 
its expiration provision. In accord with the assignments 
made by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the 
Appellate Defender and staff to provide criminal defense 
appellate services to indigent persons who are appealing 
their convictions to the North Carolina Supreme Court, 
the North Carolina Court of Appeals, or to federal 
courts. 

The Office of the Appellate Defender, through a com- 
bination of state and federal funding, also 1 provides 
assistance to attorneys representing defendants in capital 
cases, and acts as counsel for defendants in other capital 
trials and post-conviction proceedings. 



The Appellate Defender is appointed by and carries 
out the duties of the Office under the general supervision 
of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may, consistent 
with the resources available to the Appellate Defender 
and to insure quality criminal defense services, authorize 
certain appeals to be assigned to a local public defender 
office or to private assigned counsel instead of to the 
Appellate Defender. 

1989-90 Caseload 

The Office of the Appellate Defender accepted ap- 
pointment in a total of 152 appeals or petitions for writ 
of certiorari during the 1989-90 year. The Appellate 
Defender Office filed a total of 166 briefs in the North 
Carolina Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of 
North Carolina during the 1989-90 year. 



55 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 

The North Carolina Courts Commission 

(Members as of June 30, 1990) 



Appointed by the Governor 

Johnathan L. Rhyne, Jr., Lincolnton, Chairman 
Member. N.C. House of Representatives 

Clyde M. Roberts. Marshall 

Garland N. Yates, Asheboro 
District Attorney 

Harold J. Long. Yadkinville 
Clerk of Court 

Dan R. Simpson, Morganton 
Member. N.C. State Senate 

Appointed by President of the Senate 
(Lieutenant Governor) 

Russell J. Hollers, Troy 

Alfred M. Goodwin, Louisburg 

R. C. Soles, Jr., Tabor City 
Member, N.C. Senate 

Lillian O. Briant, Asheboro 

Austin M. Allran, Hickory 
Member, N.C. State Senate 

William H. Barker, Oriental 
Member, N.C. State Senate 

Ex-Officio (Non-Voting) 

O. William Faison, Raleigh 

N.C. Bar Association Representative 

Z. Creighton Brinson, Tarboro 
N.C. State Bar Representative 

Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Raleigh 
Administrative Officer of the Courts 



Appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives 

Roy A. Cooper, III, Rocky Mount 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Robert C. Hunter, Marion 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Dennis A. Wicker, Sanford 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

David T. Flaherty, Jr., Lenoir 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Charles L. Cromer, Thomasville 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Nancy C. Patteson, Wilson 

Appointed by the Chief Justice of the 
N.C. Supreme Court 

Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Raleigh 
Associate Justice, N.C. Supreme Court 

Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte 
Judge, N.C. Court of Appeals 

J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham 
Superior Court Judge 

W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 
Superior Court Judge 

Larry B. Langson, Gastonia 
District Court Judge 

Patricia Hunt, Chapel Hill 
District Court Judge 



56 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 
The North Carolina Courts Commission 



The North Carolina Courts Commission was reestab- 
lished by the 1979 General Assembly "to make continu- 
ing studies of the structure, organization, jurisdiction, 
procedures and personnel of the Judicial Department 
and of the General Court of Justice and to make 
recommendations to the General Assembly for such 
changes therein as will facilitate the administration of 
justice." Initially, the Commission consisted of 15 voting 
members, with five each appointed by the Governor, the 
President of the Senate (Lieutenant Governor), and the 
Speaker of the House. The Commission also had three 
ex officio members. 

The 1981 General Assembly amended the statutes 
pertaining to the Courts Commission, to increase the 
number of voting members from 15 to 23, with the 
Governor to appoint seven voting members, the Presi- 
dent of the Senate to appoint eight voting members, and 
the Speaker of the House to appoint eight voting 
members. The non-voting ex officio members remained 
the same: a representative of the North Carolina Bar 
Association, a representative of the North Carolina 
State Bar, and the Administrative Officer of the Courts. 

The 1983 Session of the General Assembly further 
amended G.S. 7A-506, to revise the voting membership 
of the Commission. Effective July 1, 1983, the Commis- 
sion consists of 24 voting members, six to be appointed 
by the Governor; six to be appointed by the Speaker of 



the House; six to be appointed by the President of the 
Senate; and six to be appointed by the Chief Justice of 
the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Governor 
continues to appoint the Chairman of the Commission, 
from among its legislative members. The non-voting ex 
officio membership of three persons remains the same. 

Of the six appointees of the Chief Justice, one is to be 
a Justice of the Supreme Court, one is to be a Judge of 
the Court of Appeals, two are to be judges of superior 
court, and two are to be judges of district court. 

Of the six appointees of the Governor, one is to be a 
district attorney, one a practicing attorney, one a clerk of 
superior court, and three are to be members or former 
members of the General Assembly and at least one of 
these shall not be an attorney. 

Of the six appointees of the Speaker of the House, at 
least three are to be practicing attorneys, and three are to 
be members or former members of the General Assem- 
bly, and at least one of these three is not to be an 
attorney. 

Of the six appointees of the President of the Senate, at 
least three are to be practicing attorneys, three are to be 
members or former members of the General Assembly, 
and at least one is to be a magistrate. 

As no funds were appropriated for the Courts Com- 
mission for the 1989-90 fiscal year, the Commission did 
not meet. 



57 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 

The Judicial Standards Commission 

(Members as of June 30, 1990) 



Appointed by the Chief Justice 

Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Arnold, 
Fuquay-Varina. Chairman 

Superior Court Judge James M. Long, 

Pilot Mountain 

District Court Judge W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham 



Elected by the Council of the N.C. State Bar 

Rivers D. Johnson, Jr., Warsaw, Vice-Chairman 
Louis J. Fisher, Jr., High Point 



Appointed by the Governor 

Pamela S. Gaither, Charlotte, Secretary 
Albert E. Partridge, Jr., Concord 



Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary 




Judge Gerald Arnold 



5H 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90 

THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



The Judicial Standards Commission was established 
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional 
amendment approved by the voters at the general elec- 
tion in November 1972. 

Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Su- 
preme Court may censure or remove any judge for 
willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure 
to perform his or her duties, habitual intemperance, 
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that 
brings the judicial office into disrepute. In addition, 
upon recommendation of the Commission, the Supreme 
Court may remove any judge for mental or physical 
incapacity interfering with the performance of duties, 
which is, or is likely to become, permanent. 

Where a recommendation for censure or removal 
involves a justice of the Supreme Court, the recommen- 
dation and supporting record is filed with the Court of 
Appeals which has and proceeds under the same author- 
ity for censure or removal of a judge. Such a proceeding 
would be heard by the Chief Judge of the Court of 
Appeals and the six judges senior in service, excluding 
the Court of Appeals judge who by law serves as the 
Chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission. 

In addition to a recommendation of censure or 
removal, the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary 
measure known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a 
mechanism administratively developed for dealing with 
inquiries where the conduct does not warrant censure or 
removal, but where some action is justified. Since the 
establishment of the Judicial Standards Commission in 
1973, reprimands have been issued in 19 instances cover- 
ing 25 inquiries. 

During the July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 fiscal year, the 
Judicial Standards Commission met on October 20, 



February 2, February 23, March 13, May 18, and June 
29. 

A complaint or other information against a judge, 
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the 
Commission on its own motion, is designated as an 
"Inquiry Concerning a Judge." Nine such inquiries were 
pending as of July 1, 1989, and 152 inquiries were filed 
during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a total 
workload of 161 inquiries. 

During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 
138 inquiries, and 23 inquiries remained pending at the 
end of the fiscal year. 

The determinations of the Commission regarding the 
138 inquiries disposed of during the fiscal year were as 
follows: 
(1) 130 inquiries were determined to involve evident- 
iary rulings, length of sentences, or other matters 
not within the Commission's jurisdiction, rather 
than questions of judicial misconduct; 
2 inquiries were determined to involve allegations 
of conduct which did not rise to such a level as 
would warrant investigation by the Commission; 

2 inquiries were determined to warrant no further 
action following completion of preliminary investi- 
gations; 

3 inquiries resulted in a private reprimand; and 
1 inquiry resulted in a recommendation of censure. 

Of the 23 inquiries pending at the end of the fiscal 
year: 

18 inquiries were awaiting initial review by the 
Commission; and 

5 inquiries were awaiting completion of a prelim- 
inary investigation or were subject to other action 
by the Commission. 



(2) 



(3) 



(4) 
(5) 



(1) 18 

(2) 



59 



PART III 



COURT RESOURCES 

• Financial 

• Personnel 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Under the State Constitution, the operating expenses 
of the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts), 
"other than compensation to process servers and other 
locally paid non-judicial officers," are required to be 
paid from State funds. It is customary legislative practice 
for the General Assembly to include appropriations for 
the operating expenses of all three branches of State 
government in a single budget bill, for a two-year period 
ending on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. The 
budget for the second year of the biennium is generally 
modified during the even-year legislative session. 

Building facilities for the appellate courts are provided 
by State funds, but, by statute, the county governments 
are required to provide from county funds adequate 
facilities for the trial courts within each of the 100 
counties. 



Appropriations from the State's General Fund for 
operating expenses for all departments and agencies of 
State government, including the Judicial Department, 
totalled $6,789,682,624 for the 1989-90 fiscal year. 
(Appropriations from the Highway Fund and appropria- 
tions from the General Fund for capital improvements 
and debt servicing are not included in this total.) 

The appropriation from the General Fund for the 
operating expenses of the Judicial Department for 1989- 
90 was $200,807,719. (This included $830,459 for accrued 
attorney fees for indigent defendants and $12,593,171 for 
June salaries and fringe benefits paid in July 1990.) As 
illustrated in the chart below, this General Fund approp- 
riation for the Judicial Department comprised 2.96% of 
the General Fund appropriations for the operating 
expenses of all State agencies and departments. 




JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
APPROPRIATION 

$200,807,719 

2.96% 



63 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Appropriations from the State's General Fund for 
operating expenses of the Judicial Department over the 
past seven fiscal years are shown in the table below and 
in the graph at the top of the following page. For 
comparative purposes, appropriations from the General 



Fund for operating expenses of all State agencies and 
departments (including the Judicial Department) for the 
last seven fiscal years are also shown in the table below 
and in the second graph on the following page. 



APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES 



Judicial Department 



AH State Agencies 



Fiscal Year 

1983-1984 
1984-1985 
1985-1986 
1986-1987 
1987-1988 
1988-1989 
1989-1990 





% Increase over 




% Increase over 


Appropriation 


previous year 


Appropriation 


previous year 


$106,182,188 


13.05 


$3,686,800,774 


6.02 


121,035,791 


13.99 


4,237,230,681 


14.93 


134,145,813 


10.83 


4,780,073,721 


12.81 


146,394,689 


9.13 


5,153,322,580 


7.81 


161,128,433 


10.06 


5,715,172,032 


10.90 


175,864,518 


9.14 


6,226,556,573 


8.95 


200,807,719 


14.18 


6,789,682,624 


9.04 



AVERAGE ANNUAL 
INCREASE, 1984-1990 



11.48% 



10.07% 



64 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses 
Of the Judicial Department, 1983-84 — 1989-90 



$210,000,000 

180,000,000 

150,000,000 

120,000,000 

90,000,000 

60,000,000 

30,000,000 



$200,807,719 




1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 



1987-88 



1988-89 1989-90 



$7,000,000,000 
6,000,000,000 

5,000,000,000 
4,000,000,000 
3,000,000,000 
2,000,000,000 
1,000,000,000 



General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses 
Of All State Agencies and Departments, 1983-84 - 1989-90 



$6,789,682,624 




1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987 



1988-89 1989-90 



65 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 
Expenditures July 1, 1989 — June 30, 1990* 



General Fund expenditures for operating expenses of 
the Judicial Department during the 1989-90 fiscal year 



totalled $188,202,292, divided among the major budget 
classifications as shown below. 



Supreme Court 

Court of Appeals 

Superior Courts 

District Courts 

Clerks of Superior Court 

Juvenile Probation and Aftercare 

Representation for Indigents 

Assigned private counsel 

Guardian ad litem for juveniles 

Guardian ad litem — volunteer and contract program 

Public defenders 

Special counsel at mental hospitals 

Support services (expert witness fees, 
professional examinations, transcripts) 

Appellate Defender Services 

Indigency Screening 

Appellate Defender Resource Center 

Permanent Families Task Force 

Reasonable Efforts Program 

Training — Child Abuse Cases 

District Attorney Offices 
Office-District Attorney 
District Attorneys' Conference 
Narcotics Prosecution Program 
Prosecution Improvement in Motor Vehicle Offenses 
Sexual Abuse Prosecution 
Drug Prosecution Task Force 
Sexual Abuse Prosecution Continuation 

Administrative Office of the Courts 
General Administration 
Information Services 
Warehouse & Printing 

Judicial Standards Commission 
Dispute Resolution Programs 

Custody Mediation 

Dispute Settlement Center 

Arbitration Program 

TOTAL 







%of 




Amount 


Total 




$ 2,531,624 


1.34 




3,341,672 


1.77 




18,012,980 


9.57 




32,796,473 


17.43 




56,856,236 


30.21 




12,220,901 


6.49 




25,834,339 


13.73 


16,393,715 






64,007 






2,068,450 






5,065,644 






302,087 






746,764 






576,701 






348,868 






219,998 






6,535 






21,521 






20,049 








21,284,007 


11.31 


21,007,347 






95,644 






49,381 






28,317 






35,509 






36,381 






31,428 








14,618,914 


7.77 


4,572,862 






$9,640,710 






405,342 








69,747 


.04 




635,399 


.34 


121,039 






363,728 






150,632 








$188,202,292 


100.00% 



♦Expenditures data for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and benefits) for state employees for June 1990. The 
June 1 990 payroll was disbursed in July 1 990, which is fiscal 1 990-9 1 . As a result, "total" expenditure data for 1 989-90 
are not comparable to such data for prior years. 



66 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 
Expenditures, July 1, 1989 — June 30, 1990* 



DISTRICT COURTS 

17.43% 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 
OF THE COURTS 

77% 



REPRESENTATION FOR 
INDIGENTS 13.73% 



JUDICIAL STANDARDS 
COMMISSION 0.04% 

JUVENILE 
SERVICES 6.49% 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION 
PROGRAMS 0.34% 




DISTRICT ATTORNEY PROGRAMS 

11.31% 



SUPERIOR COURTS 

9.57% 



SUPREME COURT 1.34% 
COURT OF APPEALS 1.77% 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 30.21 



As the above chart illustrates, most (68.52%) of Judi- 
cial Department expenditures goes for operation of the 
State's trial courts: operation of superior courts took 
9.57% of total expenditures; operation of the district 
courts (including magistrates, judges and court reporters) 



took 17.43% of the total; the clerks' offices, 30.21% of 
the total; and district attorneys' programs, 11.31% of 
total Judicial Department expenditures. 

The total General Fund expenditure for the Judicial 
Department for 1989-90 was $188,202,292. 



General Fund Expenditures For The Judicial Department 
1983-84 - 1989-90 



$200,000,000 

160,000,000 

120,000,000 

80,000,000 

40,000,000 



$188,202,292 



$165,637,346 



$176,623,214 



$122,061,777 $136,029,696 



$103,870,583 




1983-84 



1984-85 



1985-86 



1986-87 



1987-88 



1988-89 



1989-90 



* Expenditures data for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and benefits) for state employees for June 1990. The June 
1990 payroll was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal 1990-91. As a result, "total" expenditure data for 1989-90 are 
not comparable to such data for prior years.) 



67 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Department Receipts 
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Receipts for the Judicial Department in the 1989-90 
fiscal year totalled SI 19,381,775. The several sources of 
these receipts are shown in the table below. As in the 



previous years, the major source of receipts were General 
Court of Justice Fees paid by litigants in superior and 
district court. 



Source of Receipts 



Amount 



Supreme Court Fees 


$ 8,774 


Court of Appeals Fees 


34,026 


Miscellaneous 


132,296 


Grants 


178,939 


Sales of Appellate Division Reports 


216,067 


Department of Crime Control 


471,134 


Equipment Obligation Carryover 


560,371 


Jail Fees 


793,589 


Interest on Checking Account 


1,078,378 


Ten-Day License Revocation Fees 


1,211,841 


Indigent Representation Judgments 


2,709,350 


Officer Fees 


5,491,136 


Federal-Child Support Enforcement 


7,449,948 


LEOB Fees 


7,825,892 


Judicial Facilities Fees 


8,251,659 


Fines and Forfeitures 


31,419,858 


General Court of Justice Fees 


51,548,517 


Total 


$119,381,775 



%of 


Total 


.007 


.029 


.111 


.150 


.181 


.395 


.469 


.664 


.903 


1.015 


2.269 


4.600 


6.241 


6.555 


6.912 


26.319 


43.180 



100.000% 



This total of $119,381,775 is an increase of 12.33% 
over total 1988-89 receipts of $106,278,440. The graph below 



has been restated to reflect all Judicial Department 
receipts. 



Judicial Department Receipts, 1983-84 — 1989-90 



SI 20,000,000 



90,000,000 



60,000,000 



30.000,000 



$119,381,775 




989-90 



68 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 
(July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990) 



As required by the State Constitution, fines, penalties 
and forfeitures collected by the courts in criminal cases 
are distributed to the respective counties in which the 
cases are tried. These funds must be used by the counties 
for the support of the public schools. 

A uniform schedule of civil and criminal court costs, 
comprising a variety of fees, is set by statute for cases 
filed in the superior and district courts. Statutes prescribe 
the distribution of these fees and provide that certain 
fees shall be devoted to specific uses. For example, a 
facilities fee is included in court costs when costs are 
assessed, and this fee is paid over to the respective 
county or municipality that provided the facility used in 
the case. These fees must be utilized by the counties and 
municipalities to provide and maintain courtrooms and 
related judicial facilities. 

Officer fees (for arrest or service of process) are 
included, where applicable, in the cost of each case filed 
in the trial courts. If a municipal officer performed these 
services in a case, the fee is paid over to the respective 
municipality. Otherwise, all officer fees are paid to the 
respective counties in which the cases are filed. 

A jail fee is included in the costs of each case where 
applicable; these fees are distributed to the respective 
county or municipality whose facilities were used. Most 
jail facilities in the State are provided by the counties. 
Effective October 1, 1989, the county also receives any 



fees paid by convicted defendants who were released to 
the supervision of an agency providing pretrial release 
services in that county. 

A fee for the Law Enforcement Officers' Benefit and 
Retirement Fund is included as a part of court costs 
when costs are assessed in a criminal case. As required 
by statute, the Judicial Department remits these fees to 
the State Treasurer, for deposit in the Law Enforcement 
Officers' Benefit and Retirement Fund. 

Except as indicated, all superior and district court 
costs collected by the Judicial Department are paid into 
the State's General Fund, as are appellate court fees and 
proceeds from the sales of appellate division reports. 

When private counsel or a public defender is assigned 
to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case, the 
trial judge sets the money value for the services rendered. 
If the defendant is convicted, a judgment lien is entered 
against him/her for such amount. Collections on these 
judgments are paid into and retained by the department 
to defray the costs of legal representation of indigents. 

Proceeds from the ten-day driver's license revocation 
fee, which driving-while-impaired offenders must pay to 
recover their driver's licenses, are distributed to the 
counties. 

Since fiscal year 1987-88, the Federal Government has 
been funding a portion of child support enforcement 
costs. 



Remitted to State Treasurer 

Supreme Court Fees 

Court of Appeals Fees 

Sales of Appellate Division Reports 

LEOB Fees 

General Court of Justice Fees 

Federal-Child Support Enforcement 

Total to State Treasurer 

Distributed to Counties 

Fines and Forfeitures 

Judicial Facilities Fees 

Officer Fees 

Jail Fees 

Ten-Day License Revocation Fees 

Total to Counties 

Distributed to Counties and Beneficiaries 

Interest on Checking Accounts 

Distributed to Municipalities 

Judicial Facilities Fees 

Officer Fees 

Jail Fees 

Total to Municipalities 

Operating Receipts 

Collection on Indigent Representation Judgments 

1988-89 Equipment Obligation Carryover 

Department of Crime Control 

Grants 

Miscellaneous 

Total Retained for Operations 

GRAND TOTAL 

69 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


8,774 


.007 


34,026 


.029 


216,067 


.181 


7,825,892 


6.555 


51,548,517 


43.180 


7,449,948 


6.241 


67,083,224 


56.193 


31,419,858 


26.319 


7,888,170 


6.608 


3,521,669 


2.950 


790,458 


.662 


1,211,841 


1.015 


44,831,996 


37.554 



1,078,378 



.903 



363,489 


.304 


1,969,467 


1.650 


3,131 


.002 


2,336,087 


1.956 


2,709,350 


2.269 


560,371 


.469 


471,134 


.395 


178,939 


.150 


132,296 


.111 


4,052,090 


3.394 


$119,381,775 


100.000% 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 

Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1,1989- June 30, 1990 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 




County 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


TOTAL 


Alamance 


142,734 


69,243 


27,394 


491,839 


-0- 


33,507 


-0- 


764,718 


Alexander 


20.988 


12,202 


6,184 


111,817 


-0- 


864 


-0- 


152,056 


Alleghany 


9,184 


5,899 


2,820 


52,731 


-0- 


280 


-0- 


70,914 


Anson 


29,711 


17,080 


1,365 


178,572 


3,998 


1,263 


-0- 


231,988 


Ashe 


17,693 


13,236 


1,979 


68,130 


-0- 


1,416 


-0- 


102,453 


Avery 


16,334 


11,595 


560 


60,402 


1,447 


568 


-0- 


90,906 


Beaufort 


65,497 


51,466 


20,594 


275,023 


-0- 


13,168 


-0- 


425,748 


Bertie 


24,018 


18,043 


1,009 


101,100 


-0- 


450 


-0- 


144,620 


Bladen 


44,776 


35,903 


978 


158,380 


239 


2,152 


-0- 


242,429 


Brunswick 


59,423 


35,764 


1,407 


263,985 


944 


13,541 


-0- 


375,064 


Buncombe 


203,090 


120,213 


2,795 


909,743 


-0- 


47,149 


-0- 


1,282,990 


Burke 


83,898 


35,676 


9,722 


377,305 


-0- 


11,201 


-0- 


517,802 


Cabarrus 


109,761 


60,093 


22,102 


535,877 


7,531 


39,445 


-0- 


774,809 


Caldwell 


75,151 


27,195 


9,599 


428,480 


-0- 


15,963 


-0- 


556,389 


Camden 


9,948 


7,985 


1,651 


53,457 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


73,041 


Carteret 


66,418 


30,756 


3,162 


242,475 


-0- 


16,486 


-0- 


359,297 


Caswell 


19,252 


15,160 


2,686 


132,462 


-0- 


360 


25 


169,945 


Catawba 


76,516 


68,398 


13,118 


658,407 


46,639 


-0- 


-0- 


863,079 


Chatham 


38,586 


38,631 


4,887 


231,162 


11,436 


1,008 


278 


325,988 


Cherokee 


21,260 


17,224 


6,040 


121,858 


-0- 


2,535 


5 


168,922 


Chowan 


19,117 


12,612 


553 


72,953 


-0- 


12,276 


-0- 


117,511 


Clay 


6,028 


4,428 


2,385 


32,485 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


45,326 


Cleveland 


96,830 


50,692 


25,740 


390,954 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


564,216 


Columbus 


49,611 


44,643 


5,009 


183,597 


2,779 


4,008 


-0- 


289,648 


Craven 


92,414 


54,559 


14,537 


416,927 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


578,437 


Cumberland 


317,549 


96,768 


29,405 


966,472 


-0- 


75,263 


-0- 


1,485,457 


Currituck 


24,696 


20,634 


3,663 


127,329 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


176,322 


Dare 


77,280 


30,596 


8,099 


382,869 


-0- 


26,692 


-0- 


525,537 


Davidson 


106,438 


80,458 


5,878 


547,972 


15,358 


10,852 


-0- 


766,955 


Davie 


28,768 


21,396 


3,810 


106,992 


-0- 


296 


-0- 


161,262 


Duplin 


48,296 


30,406 


12,525 


202,823 


-0- 


784 


170 


295,005 


Durham 


266,595 


82,081 


12,284 


1,092,250 


-0- 


101,335 


-0- 


1,554,545 


Edgecombe 


63,615 


30,410 


12,424 


263,366 


37,091 


28,777 


215 


435,898 


Forsyth 


355,547 


44,524 


18,672 


1,117,413 


4,519 


108,266 


-0- 


1,648,942 


Franklin 


37,066 


23,354 


5,880 


172,088 


-0- 


604 


-0- 


238,993 


Gaston 


155,236 


97,166 


3,892 


428,724 


-0- 


19,806 


-0- 


704,824 


Gates 


14,455 


10,439 


2,505 


63,265 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


90,664 


Graham 


5,406 


3,787 


1,220 


33,608 


-0- 


72 


-0- 


44,093 


Granville 


47,965 


24,094 


9,112 


228,831 


18 


6,735 


170 


316,925 


Greene 


15,351 


11,103 


1,078 


80,552 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


108,084 


Guilford 


464,999 


52,086 


12,787 


1,252,524 


-0- 


177,405 


-0- 


1,959,802 


Halifax 


77,145 


54,519 


14,039 


362,189 


3,640 


13,472 


180 


525,184 


Harnett 


62,525 


47,915 


15,111 


350,147 


1 1 ,900 


5,062 


-0- 


492,660 


Haywood 


43,339 


31,043 


13,309 


220,475 


903 


3,836 


-0- 


312,904 


Henderson 


71,472 


39,506 


4,172 


340,793 


-0- 


3,228 


-0- 


459,170 


Hertford 


29,144 


18,401 


3,660 


171,865 


-0- 


2,128 


-0- 


225,198 


Hoke 


28,218 


18,275 


7,452 


149,798 


-0- 


2,260 


-0- 


206,003 


Hyde 


9,183 


7,286 


2,352 


43,768 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


62,589 


Iredell 


90,044 


42,522 


8,139 


464,903 


13,029 


20,403 


262 


639,301 


Jackson 


22,972 


17,529 


1 6,649 


186,708 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


243,859 



70 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 

Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 




County 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


TOTAL 


Johnston 


81,742 


60,161 


26,305 


454,777 


15,469 


12,108 


80 


650,642 


Jones 


10,492 


6,964 


270 


26,489 


-0- 


528 


-0- 


44,743 


Lee 


38,035 


-0- 


30,565 


267,718 


66,896 


14,499 


-0- 


417,714 


Lenoir 


80,672 


35,385 


11,180 


343,591 


-0- 


16,749 


-0- 


487,576 


Lincoln 


47,305 


29,760 


4,766 


241,864 


-0- 


5,588 


-0- 


329,283 


Macon 


21,887 


15,354 


927 


197,716 


-0- 


716 


-0- 


236,600 


Madison 


16,460 


13,421 


205 


70,864 


-0- 


368 


-0- 


101,318 


Martin 


34,825 


23,955 


7,055 


118,447 


-0- 


2,936 


-0- 


187,218 


McDowell 


39,781 


25,701 


734 


164,384 


-0- 


2,348 


-0- 


232,948 


Mecklenburg 


662,889 


68,561 


36 


1,725,261 


-0- 


399,728 


-0- 


2,856,476 


Mitchell 


11,358 


6,445 


1,812 


56,033 


-0- 


1,292 


-0- 


76,940 


Montgomery 


40,232 


33,038 


3,754 


185,770 


-0- 


2,504 


-0- 


265,298 


Moore 


72,968 


45,383 


721 


394,214 


4,410 


14,623 


-0- 


532,320 


Nash 


71,469 


75,278 


10,939 


408,842 


51,522 


26,891 


1,247 


646,188 


New Hanover 


157,047 


40,758 


5,515 


477,020 


705 


33,066 


-0- 


714,112 


Northampton 


25,562 


21,173 


2,654 


119,558 


765 


2,052 


-0- 


171,764 


Onslow 


141,823 


64,849 


25,450 


487,910 


-0- 


56,142 


-0- 


776,175 


Orange 


68,495 


55,895 


10,060 


355,846 


31,707 


18,512 


172 


540,688 


Pamlico 


7,882 


6,055 


1,073 


44,881 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


59,891 


Pasquotank 


44,575 


17,757 


6,280 


201,997 


-0- 


17,797 


-0- 


288,407 


Pender 


31,602 


23,728 


2,385 


158,562 


-0- 


785 


-0- 


217,061 


Perquimans 


13,532 


8,960 


704 


55,685 


-0- 


942 


-0- 


79,822 


Person 


34,650 


25,403 


3,570 


160,880 


-0- 


4,132 


-0- 


228,635 


Pitt 


138,512 


48,058 


20,597 


577,197 


13,531 


53,136 


268 


851,300 


Polk 


12,899 


9,642 


395 


73,818 


-0- 


164 


-0- 


96,918 


Randolph 


96,267 


67,170 


5,530 


489,698 


3,478 


10,190 


-0- 


672,333 


Richmond 


62,928 


35,615 


8,660 


350,043 


-0- 


4,434 


-0- 


461,680 


Robeson 


111,430 


86,175 


13,300 


613,354 


36,363 


34,710 


35 


895,367 


Rockingham 


86,676 


43,693 


5,353 


496,095 


13,014 


20,147 


-0- 


664,977 


Rowan 


115,519 


68,823 


17,976 


534,102 


-0- 


31,951 


-0- 


768,371 


Rutherford 


65,891 


35,152 


6,956 


323,400 


-0- 


11,132 


-0- 


442,531 


Sampson 


76,894 


56,379 


7,441 


262,937 


-0- 


4,623 


-0- 


408,274 


Scotland 


45,788 


27,816 


5,387 


234,855 


-0- 


7,400 


-0- 


321,246 


Stanly 


46,640 


17,651 


3,878 


257,289 


-0- 


8,687 


-0- 


334,146 


Stokes 


41,648 


27,239 


3,185 


173,937 


-0- 


759 


-0- 


246,768 


Surry 


68,432 


49,316 


2,468 


309,011 


1,455 


9,975 


-0- 


440,657 


Swain 


11,893 


8,024 


3,670 


83,647 


-0- 


96 


-0- 


107,330 


Transylvania 


20,483 


16,926 


6,106 


88,021 


-0- 


2,120 


-0- 


133,656 


Tyrrell 


19,164 


15,400 


1,956 


61,657 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


98,177 


Union 


91,392 


66,148 


11,881 


517,546 


-0- 


16,384 


-0- 


703,350 


Vance 


72,705 


26,582 


7,111 


234,024 


-0- 


11,633 


-0- 


352,055 


Wake 


646,507 


71,302 


37,267 


1,695,306 


7,218 


223,219 


24 


2,680,844 


Warren 


22,570 


17,893 


3,620 


106,556 


140 


246 


-0- 


151,025 


Washington 


16,051 


11,465 


3,345 


67,570 


-0- 


1,616 


-0- 


100,046 


Watauga 


39,175 


23,708 


3,271 


122,447 


-0- 


6,334 


-0- 


194,935 


Wayne 


100,582 


53,704 


11,330 


379,549 


1,984 


25,302 


-0- 


572,451 


Wilkes 


68,185 


36,645 


14,906 


281,266 


-0- 


3,275 


-0- 


404,276 


Wilson 


94,933 


68,586 


6,590 


247,172 


-0- 


18,234 


■0- 


435,515 


Yadkin 


35,682 


21,853 


4,483 


151,845 


-0- 


3,960 


-0- 


217,823 


Yancey 


15,860 


11,726 


443 


61,362 


-0- 


516 


-0- 


89,907 


State Totals 


$7,888,170 


$3,521,669 


$790,458 


$31,419,858 


$363,489 


$1,969,467 


$3,131 


$45,956,242 



*Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and municipalities which furnished the facilities. If the officer who 
made the arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise all 
officer fees are distributed to the respective counties. By provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by the 
courts within a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 



71 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



The State provides legal counsel for indigent persons 
in a variety of actions and proceedings, as specified in 
the North Carolina General Statutes, Sections 7A-450 et 
seq. These include criminal proceedings, judicial hospital- 
ization proceedings, and juvenile proceedings which may 
result in commitment to an institution or transfer to 
superior court for trial as an adult. Legal representation 
for indigents may be by assignment of private counsel, 
by assignment of special public counsel (involving mental 
hospital commitments), or by assignment of a public 
defender. 

Ten defender districts, serving 12 counties, have an 
office of public defender: Districts 3A, 3B, 12, 15B, 16A, 
16B, 18, 26, 27A, and 28. Further details on these offices 
are given in Section II of this Annual Report. In areas of 
the State not served by a public defender office, repre- 
sentation of indigents is provided by assignments of 
private counsel. Private counsel may also be assigned in 
the ten districts which have a public defender, in the 
event of a conflict of interest involving the public 
defender's office and the indigent, and in the event of 
unusual circumstances when, in the opinion of the court, 
the proper administration of justice requires the assign- 
ment of private counsel. 

The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-funded program on October 1, 1981. Pursuant to 
assignments made by trial court judges, it is the respon- 
sibility of the Appellate Defender and staff to provide 
criminal defense appellate services to indigent persons 
who are appealing their convictions to either the 
Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. The Appellate 
Defender is appointed by and is under the general 
supervision of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may, 
consistent with the resources available to the Appellate 
Defender and to insure quality criminal defense services, 
authorize certain appeals to be assigned to a local public 
defender office or to private assigned counsel instead of 
to the Appellate Defender. The cost data reported on the 
following table reflect the activities of this office in both 
the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1990. 



In addition, the State provides a full-time special 
counsel at each of the State's four mental health 
hospitals, to represent patients in commitment or re- 
commitment hearings before a district court judge. Under 
North Carolina law, each patient committed to a mental 
health hospital is entitled to a judicial hearing (before a 
district court judge) within 90 days after the initial 
commitment, a further hearing within 180 days after the 
initial commitment, and thereafter a hearing at least 
once each year during the continuance of an involuntary 
commitment. 

A juvenile alleged to be within the jurisdiction of the 
court has the right to be represented by counsel in all 
proceedings; and juveniles are conclusively presumed to 
be indigent and entitled to State-appointed and State- 
paid counsel (G.S. 7A-584). When a petition alleges that 
a juvenile is abused or neglected, the judge is required to 
appoint a guardian ad litem, and when a juvenile is 
alleged to be dependent, the judge may appoint a 
guardian ad litem. If the guardian ad litem is not an 
attorney, the judge in addition is to appoint an attorney 
to represent the juvenile's interests (G.S. 7A-586). Where 
a juvenile petition alleges that a juvenile is abused, 
neglected or dependent, the parent has a right to ap- 
pointed counsel in cases of indigency (G.S. 7A-587). 

The cost of all programs of indigent representation 
was $25,834,339 in the 1989-90 fiscal year, compared to 
$23,425,301 in the 1988-89 fiscal year, an increase of 
10.3%. (However, expenditures data for 1989-90 do not 
include payroll (salary and benefits) for state employees 
for June 1990. The June 1990 payroll was disbursed in 
July 1990, which is fiscal 1990-91. As a result, "total" 
expenditure data for 1989-90 indigent defense costs are 
not fully comparable to such data for prior years.) The 
total amount expended for these activities was 13.7% of 
total Judicial Department expenditures in the 1989-90 
fiscal year. 

Following is a summary of case and cost data for 
representation of indigents for the fiscal year, July 1, 
1989 through June 30, 1990. 



72 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents* 
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Number 
of Cases 


Total 
Cost 


Average 
Per Case 


556 

55,842 

7,664 

64,062 


$ 2,302,472 

12,954,045 

1,137,198 

16,393,715 


$4,141 
232 
148 
256 



354 



8,161 



64,007 



2,068,450 



181 



253 



Assigned Private Counsel 

Capital offense cases 
Adult cases (other than capital) 
Juvenile cases 
Totals 

Guardian ad litem for juveniles 

Guardian ad litem volunteer and 
contract program 

Public Defender Offices** 

District 3A 
District 3B 
District 12 
District 15B 
District 16A 
District 16B 
District 18 
District 26 
District 27A 
District 28 
Totals 

Appellate Defender Office 

Special Counsel at State mental health hospitals 

Support Services 

Transcripts, records and briefs 
Professional Examinations 
Expert Witness Fees 
Total 

Indigency Screening 

Appellate Defender Resource Center*** 

Permanent Family Task Force 

Reasonable Efforts Program 

Training — Child Abuse Cases 

GRAND TOTAL 

♦Expenditures data for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and benefits) for state employees for June 1990 (including public and 
appellate defender, guardian ad litem, special counsel, and indigency screener personnel). The June 1990 payroll was disbursed in 
July 1990, which is fiscal 1990-91. As a result, "total" expenditure data for 1989-90 are not comparable to such data for prior 
years. 

**The number of "cases" shown is the number of defendants in cases disposed of by public defenders during the 1989-90 year. 

***Of the total cost, $104,693 (47.6%) in federal grant funds were received for the operations of the Resource Center during 1989-90. 



1,478 


329,520 


223 


600 


94,097 


157 


3,010 


722,219 


240 


1,257 


255,335 


203 


865 


200,487 


232 


1,547 


335,751 


217 


3,947 


867,308 


220 


14,884 


1,365,615 


92 


2,298 


485,508 


211 


2,198 


409,804 


186 


32,084 


5,065,644 
576,701 
302,087 

556,429 

23,574 

166,761 

746,764 

348,868 

219,998 

6,535 

21,521 

20,049 

$25,834,339 


158 



73 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

State Mental Health Hospital Commitment Hearings 
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



The total cost of providing special counsel at each of 
the State's four mental health hospitals, to represent 
patients in commitment or recommitment hearings, was 
S302.087 for the 1989-90 fiscal year. (Expenditures data 
for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and benefits) 
for state employees for June 1990. The June 1990 payroll 
was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal 1990-91. As a 
result, "total" expenditure data for 1989-90 are not 



comparable to such data for prior years.) There was a 
total of 13,169 hearings held during the year, for an 
average cost per hearing of $22.94 for the special counsel 
service. 

The following table presents data on the hearings held 
at each of the mental health hospitals in 1989-90. There 
were 861 more hearings held in 1989-90 than in 1988-89, 
an increase of 7.0% in total hearings. 



Broughton Cherry 



Initial Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Total 

First Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Total 

Second or Subsequent Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Total 

Modification of Prior Order Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Total 



1,009 

1,137 

911 

3,057 



221 



377 



1,393 
210 
466 

2,069 



518 



430 



Dorothea 
Dix 



1,021 
243 
489 

1,753 



355 



388 



John 
Umstead 



1,532 
518 

525 

2,575 



474 



723 



Totals 

4,955 
2,108 
2,391 

9,454 



165 


335 


278 


347 


1,125 


18 


31 


11 


29 


89 


38 


152 


66 


98 


354 



1,568 



345 


427 


348 


647 


1,767 


7 


1 


11 


5 


24 


25 


2 


29 


71 


127 



1,918 



13 


2 


3 





18 


15 


6 


26 


133 


180 


7 


15 


9 





31 



35 



23 



38 



133 



229 



Total Hearings or Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Grand Totals 



,532 


2,157 


1,650 


2,526 


7,865 


,177 


248 


291 


685 


2,401 


981 


635 


593 


694 


2,903 



3,690 



3,040 



2,534 



3,905 



13,169 



74 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



Number of Cases 



District 1 



Duplin 

Jones 

Sampson 

District Totals 

District 4B 
Onslow 
District Totals 

District 5 



New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 A 
Halifax 
District Totals 

District 6B 

Bertie 

Hertford 

Northampton 

District Totals 



Expenditures 



Number of Cases 



Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


28 
102 

94 
305 

58 
400 

81 


28,096 
56,892 
29,928 

114,515 
17,857 

117,500 
23,824 


3 
3 


4 
1 

8 
4 


District Totals 


1,068 


388,612 


23 


District 2 








Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 


499 

26 

195 

48 
147 


177,226 

9,945 

46,515 

10,069 

31,553 


2 




4 


District Totals 


915 


275,308 


6 


District 3 A 








Pitt 


699 


191,229 


5 


District Totals 


699 


191,229 


5 


District SB 








Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 


128 

885 

77 


79,163 

215,066 

19,938 



5 



District Totals 


1,090 


314,167 


5 


District 4 A 









353 

46 

448 

847 



1,585 
1,585 

2,070 
166 

2,236 

560 
560 



174 
337 
231 

742 



211,888 

8,716 

126,665 

347,269 

307,008 
307,008 



532,502 

58,348 

590,850 



151,869 
151,869 



89,969 
98,822 
73,268 

262,059 



11 


1 



12 

iZ 

17 



2 

9 

_4 

15 



Expenditures 

339 

100 



875 
128 
469 
175 



2,086 

200 




200 



400 



1,030 



1,030 





3,750 




3,750 

2,200 



900 



3,100 

1,460 



1,460 



n 





525 



525 



200 

875 
425 

1,500 



75 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



District 7 A 



Durham 

District Totals 



Number of Cases 



Expenditures 



3,466 
3,466 



Nash 


819 


248,909 


District Totals 


819 


248,909 


District 7B/C 






Edgecombe 


765 


203,167 


Wilson 


838 


219,749 


District Totals 


1,603 


422,916 


District 8 A 






Greene 


112 


66,706 


Lenoir 


826 


225,360 


District Totals 


938 


292,066 


District 8B 






Wayne 


1,200 


269,174 


District Totals 


1,200 


269,174 


District 9 






Franklin 


474 


116,079 


Granville 


593 


163,246 


Person 


408 


99,845 


Vance 


740 


196,124 


Warren 


188 


51,370 


District Totals 


2,403 


626,664 


District 10 






Wake 


6,092 


1,417,647 


District Totals 


6,092 


1,417,647 


District 11 






Harnett 


1,032 


203,882 


Johnston 


1,324 


231,880 


Lee 


833 


147,470 


District Totals 


3,189 


583,232 


District 12 






Cumberland 


886 


378,016 


District Totals 


886 


378,016 


District 13 






Bladen 


534 


94.455 


Brunswick 


591 


184,903 


Columbus 


708 


182,092 


District Totals 


1,833 


461,450 


District 14 







813,075 
813,075 



Number of Cases 



Expenditures 



11 

3 



5 

I 

_5 

11 



JO 
10 



900 

335 



1,235 



700 



700 







335 

750 

1,100 



2,185 



1,850 



1,850 



890 





890 



720 



720 



525 
350 
575 



1,450 

2,260 



2,260 



76 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 





Assigned 


Counsel 


Guardian Ad Litem 


District 15 A 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Alamance 


1,108 


308,805 


7 


510 


District Totals 


1,108 


308,805 


7 


510 


District 15B 










Chatham 
Orange 


99 

362 


27,112 
89,196 


2 
4 


280 
500 


District Totals 


461 


116,308 


6 


780 


District 16 A 










Hoke 
Scotland 


22 
188 


7,395 
73,114 




17 



810 


District Totals 


210 


80,509 


17 


810 


District 16 B 










Robeson 


603 


198,549 


10 


1,225 


District Totals 


603 


198,549 


10 


1,225 


District 17 A 










Caswell 
Rockingham 


145 
1,126 


31,992 
301,442 


4 
5 


325 
350 


District Totals 


1,271 


333,434 


9 


675 


District 17 B 










Stokes 
Surry 


351 
768 


85,673 
220,229 


11 
2 


1,525 
250 


District Totals 


1,119 


305,902 


13 


1,775 


District 18 










Guilford 


1,200 


398,509 


7 


1,545 


District Totals 


1,200 


398,509 


7 


1,545 


District 19 A 










Cabarrus 


859 


195,893 


5 


935 


District Totals 


859 


195,893 


5 


935 


District 19 B 










Montgomery 
Randolph 


250 
1,015 


62,115 
246,968 


2 
5 


275 
360 


District Totals 


1,265 


309,083 


7 


635 


District 19 C 










Rowan 


1,124 


298,167 


15 


1,450 


District Totals 


1,124 


298,167 


15 


1,450 


District 20 A 










Anson 
Moore 
Richmond 


386 

905 

1,099 


104,648 
202,334 
265,701 




10 

4 




2,250 

870 


District Totals 


2,390 


572,683 


14 


3,120 



77 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 





Assigned 


Counsel 


Guardian Ad Litem 


District 20B 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases Expenditures 


Stanly 
Union 


465 
940 


104,044 

234,855 


1 100 
1 150 


District Totals 


1,405 


338,899 


2 250 


District 21 








Forsyth 


3,842 


756,106 


2 150 


District Totals 


3,842 


756,106 


2 150 


District 22 








Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


402 
1,658 

197 
1,471 


90,550 
383,272 

39,200 
333,590 


2 150 

10 1,257 



8 1,695 


District Totals 


3,728 


846,612 


20 3,102 


District 23 








Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


52 
191 
501 

255 


16,851 

48,553 

113,756 

48,965 




3 1,250 



District Totals 


999 


228,125 


3 1,250 


District 24 








Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


214 
121 

89 
299 

63 


44,690 
33,353 
27,089 
127,247 
11,970 


3 875 

6 1,576 
3 1,050 
2 250 


District Totals 


786 


244,349 


14 3,751 


District 25 A 








Burke 
Caldwell 


743 
712 


174,521 
173,544 



4 1,025 


District Totals 


1,455 


348,065 


4 1,025 


District 25 B 








Catawba 


1,484 


287,955 


1 700 


District Totals 


1,484 


287,955 


1 700 


District 26 








Mecklenburg 


1,577 


657,702 


17 3,835 


District Totals 


1,577 


657,702 


17 3,835 


District 27 A 








Gaston 


262 


71,044 


4 700 


District Totals 


262 


71,044 


4 700 



78 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 





Assigned Counsel 


Guardian Ad Litem 


District 27 B 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Cleveland 
Lincoln 


493 
209 


120,560 
63,629 


3 



335 



District Totals 


702 


184,189 


3 


335 


District 28 










Buncombe 


393 
393 


78,118 


8 
8 


1,245 


District Totals 


78,118 


1,245 


District 29 










Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


963 
364 
120 
564 
249 


211,177 

138,954 

31,268 

94,458 

73,857 


1 

2 
1 

3 
1 


464 
980 
785 
550 
410 


District Totals 


2,260 


549,714 


8 


3,189 


District 30 A 










Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Macon 

Swain 


232 

39 

54 

307 

115 


81,800 
7,103 
20,812 
51,504 
24,644 


3 

2 
5 



576 



115 

1,215 




District Totals 


747 


185,863 


10 


1,906 


District 30B 










Haywood 
Jackson 


481 
160 


116,025 

41,587 


11 




3,968 



District Totals 


641 


157,612 


11 


3,968 


STATE TOTALS 


64,062 


$16,393,715 


354 


$64,007 



79 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL 

(Positions and salaries authorized as of June 30, 1990) 

Positions 

Authorized Salary Ranges 
SUPREME COURT 

Justices $ 84,456-86,232* 

30 Staff Personnel (Clerk's and Reporter's offices 

law clerks, library staff) $ 14,712-63,540 

Secretarial personnel $ 27,156-28,320 

COURT OF APPEALS 

12 Judges $ 79,968-81,756* 

40 Staff personnel (Clerk's office, prehearing staff, 

Judicial Standards Commission staff, law clerks) $ 14,136-58,001 

12 Secretarial personnel $ 26,004-27,156 

SUPERIOR COURT 

77 Judges $ 70,992-73,332* 

84 Staff personnel $ 22,596-53,280 

85 Secretarial personnel $ 7,650-32,028 

DISTRICT COURT 

164 Judges $ 60,240-62,628* 

654 Magistrates $ 15,600-26,628 

29 Staff personnel $ 17,640-29,580 

35 Secretarial personnel $ 16,560-25,704 

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

37 District Attorneys $ 66,060* 

325 Staff personnel $ 18,720-65,352 

137 Secretarial personnel $ 15,300-37,608 

CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

100 Clerks of Superior Court $ 44,256-57,072* 

1.740 Staff personnel $ 15,312-32,772 

INDIGENT REPRESENTATION 

1 Appellate Defender $ 66,060 

8 Assistant Appellate Defenders $ 19,080-49,000 

3 Secretarial personnel $ 17,808-24,600 

1 Resource Center Director $ 56,184 

3 Resource Center Staff personnel $ 22,596-50,000 

10 Public Defenders $ 66,060* 

80 Staff personnel $ 22,000-65,500 

31 Secretarial personnel $ 15,900-23,820 

4 Special counsel at mental hospitals $ 13,788-39,000 

4 Secretarial personnel $ 18,384-20,736 

1 Assistant to Special Counsel $ 23,076 

1 Guardian ad Litem, Program Administrator $ 61,356 

4 Regional Administrators $ 25,704-36,348 

3 1 District Administrators $ 14,940-29,880 

9 Program Supervisors $ 4,680-25,128 

1 Program Coordinator $ 8,622 

1 3 Program Assistants $ 4,881-14,643 

9 Secretarial personnel $ 3,825-19,932 

JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 

323 Court counselors $ 18,720-46,296 

50 Secretarial personnel $ 8,376-26,004 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

1 Administrative Officer of the Courts $ 73,332* 

1 Assistant Director $ 59,772* 

189 Staff personnel $ 16,248-80,616 

*In addition to the salaries given here, these categories are entitled to a longevity allowance for years of service. 



80 



PART IV 



TRIAL COURTS CASEFLOW DATA 

• Superior Court Division 

• District Court Division 



TRIAL COURTS CASE DATA 



This part of the Annual Report presents pertinent 
data on a district-by-district and county-by-county basis. 
For ease of reference, this part is divided into a superior 
court division section and a district court division 
section. 

The data within the two sections are generally parallel 
in terms of organization, with each section subdivided 
into civil and criminal case categories. With some excep- 
tions, there are three basic data tables for each case 
category: a caseload inventory (filings, dispositions and 
pending) table; a table on the manner of dispositions; 
and tables on ages of cases disposed of during the year 
and ages of cases pending at the end of the year. Pending 
and age data are not provided for district court motor 
vehicle criminal cases, infractions, civil cases (small 
claims) referred to magistrates, or juvenile cases, as these 
categories of cases are not reported by case file number. 

The caseload inventory tables provide a statistical 
picture of caseflow during the 1989-90 year. Inventory 
tables show the number of cases pending at the beginning 
of the year, the number of new cases filed, the number of 
cases disposed of during the year, and the number of 
cases left pending at the end of the year. The caseload 
inventory also shows the total caseload (the number 
pending at the beginning of the year plus the number 
filed during the year) and the percentage of the caseload 
that was disposed of during the year. 

The aging tables show the ages of the cases pending on 
June 30, 1990, as well as the ages of the cases disposed of 
during 1989-90. These tables also show both mean 
(average) and median ages for cases pending at the end 
of the year and cases disposed of during the year. The 
median age of a group of cases is, by definition, the age 
of a hypothetical case which is older than 50% of the 
total set of cases and younger than the other 50%. 

Unlike the median, the mean age can be substantially 
raised (or lowered) if even a small number of very old (or 
very young) cases are included. For example, if only a 
single two-year old case was included with ten cases aged 
three months, the median age would be 90 days and the 
mean (average) age would be 148.2 days. A substantial 
difference between the median and average ages, there- 
fore, indicates the presence of a number of cases at the 
relative extremes, with either very high or very low ages. 

The majority of caseload statistics is now handled by 
automated processing rather than manual processing. 



Automated processing covers all case categories except 
estates, special proceedings, and juvenile proceedings. 
As of June 30, 1990, 99 counties were on the criminal 
module and all 100 counties were on the civil and 
infraction modules of the Administrative Office of the 
Court's (AOC) Court Information System (CIS). Meck- 
lenburg County has its own county-based processing 
system for criminal cases. 

The case statistics in Part IV have been summarized 
from the automated filing and disposition case data, as 
well as from manually reported case data. Pending case 
information is calculated from the filing and disposition 
data. The accuracy of the pending case figures is, of 
course, dependent upon timely and accurate data on 
filings and dispositions. 

Periodic comparisons by clerk personnel of their 
actual pending case files against the Administrative 
Office of the Court's computer-produced pending case 
lists, followed by indicated corrections, are necessary to 
maintain completely accurate data in the AOC computer 
file. Yet, staff resources in the clerks' offices are not 
sufficient to make such physical inventory checks as 
frequently and as completely as would be necessary to 
maintain full accuracy in the AOC's computer files. 
Thus, it is recognized that there is some margin of error 
in the figures published in the following tables. 

Another accuracy-related problem inherent in the 
AOC's reporting system is the lack of absolute con- 
sistency in the published year-end and year-beginning 
pending figures. The number of cases pending at the end 
of a reporting year should ideally be identical to the 
number of published pending cases at the beginning of 
the next reporting year. In reality, this is rarely the case. 
Experience has shown that inevitably some filings and 
dispositions that occurred in the preceding year do not 
get reported until the subsequent year. The later-reported 
data are regarded as being more complete and are used 
in the current year's tables, thereby producing some 
differences between the prior year's end-pending figures 
and the current year's begin-pending figures. 

Notwithstanding the indicated limitations in the data 
reporting and data-processing system, it is believed that 
the published figures are sufficiently adequate to fully 
justify their use. In any event, the published figures are 
the best and most accurate data currently available. 



83 



PART IV, Section 1 



Superior Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



The Superior Court Division 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the 1989-90 caseflow of cases pending, 
filed, and disposed of in the State's superior courts 
before superior court judges. Data are also presented on 
cases filed and disposed of before the 100 clerks of 
superior court, who have original jurisdiction over estate 
cases and special proceedings. 

There are, for statistical reporting purposes, three 
categories of cases filed in the superior courts: civil cases 
(excluding estates and special proceedings), felony cases 
that are within the original jurisdiction of the superior 
courts, and misdemeanors. Most misdemeanor cases in 
superior court are appeals from convictions in district 
court; however, the superior courts have original juris- 
diction over misdemeanors in four instances defined in 
G.S. 7A-271, which includes, among others, the initiation 
of charges by presentment, and certain situations where 
a misdemeanor charge is consolidated with a felony 
charge. 

During 1989-90, as in previous years, the greatest 
proportion of superior court filings was felonies (54.4%), 
followed by misdemeanors (30.4%) and civil cases 
(15.2%). Following the general trend over the past 
decade, the total number of case filings increased signifi- 
cantly. During 1989-90, total case filings in superior 
courts increased by 8.5% from the preceding fiscal year 
(from 118,188 total cases to 128,215). Filings of civil 
cases increased by 10.4%, felony filings increased by 
1 1.2%, and misdemeanor filings increased by 3.0%. 

Superior court civil cases generally take much longer 
to dispose of than do criminal cases. During 1989-90, the 
median age at disposition of civil cases was 271 days, 
compared to a median age at disposition of 86 days for 
felonies and 76 days for misdemeanors. A similar pattern 
exists for the ages of pending cases. The median ages of 
superior court cases pending on June 30, 1990, was 225 
days for civil cases, 96 days for felonies, and 93 days for 
misdemeanors. 

These differences in the median ages of civil versus 
criminal cases in superior courts can be attributed in part 
to the priority given criminal cases. In criminal cases, a 
defendant has a right to a "speedy trial" guaranteed by 
both the United States and North Carolina Constitu- 
tions. In addition, until it was repealed effective October 
1, 1989, the North Carolina Speedy Trial Act (G.S. 15A- 
701 et seq.) required cases to go to trial within 120 days 
of filing unless there had been justifiable delay for one or 
more of the reasons set out in the statute. During 1989- 
90, 23 criminal cases were dismissed under the Speedy 
Trial Act. 



There is no statutory standard for speedy disposition 
of civil cases in North Carolina, although the North 
Carolina Constitution does provide that "right and 
justice shall be administered without favor, denial, or 
delay" (Article I, Section 18, N.C. Constitution). 

From 1988-89 to 1989-90, for civil cases, the median 
age at disposition decreased from 297 days to 271 days, 
whereas the median age of cases pending at year-end 
increased from 219 days to 225 days. For felony cases, 
the median age at disposition increased from 85 days to 
86 days, and the median age of cases pending at year-end 
increased from 91 days to 96 days. For misdemeanor 
cases, the median age at disposition increased from 72 
days to 76 days, and the median age of cases pending 
increased from 79 days to 93 days. 

The three major case categories (civil, felonies, and 
misdemeanors) may be broken down into more specific 
case types. In the civil category, negligence cases com- 
prised 42. 1 % of total civil filings in superior courts (8,175 
of 19,431 total civil filings). Contract cases comprised 
the next largest category of civil case filings, at 30.1% 
(5,841 filings). Felony case filings were dominated by the 
following types of cases: controlled substances violations, 
29.0% (20,272 of 69,810 total filings); burglary and 
breaking or entering, 19.1% (13,311 filings); larceny, 
12.1% (8,443 filings); and forgery and uttering, 11.3% 
(7,863 filings). Non-motor vehicle appeals comprised 
50.7% of misdemeanor filings in superior courts (19,759 
of 38,974 total filings). 

Case dispositions in 1989-90 increased by 5.8% over 
last fiscal year (from 111,278 to 117,787 superior court 
dispositions). Jury trials continued to account for a low 
percentage of case dispositions: 4.8% of civil cases (868 
of 17,929 civil dispositions); 3.4% of felonies (2,169 of 
63,920 felony dispositions); and 2.6% of misdemeanors 
(924 of 35,938 misdemeanor dispositions). Over half 
(54.0%) of all civil dispositions were by voluntary dis- 
missal (9,687 of 17,929 civil dispositions). As in previous 
years, most criminal cases were disposed of by guilty 
plea; 64.3% of all felony dispositions (41,1 15 of 63,920), 
and 35.4% of all misdemeanor dispositions (12,718 of 
35,938) were by guilty plea, with almost 82% of these 
being to the offense as charged. 

The total number of cases disposed of in superior 
courts in 1989-90 was 10,428 cases less than the total 
number of cases filed. Consequently, the total number of 
pending cases in superior courts increased from 52,607 at 
the beginning of the fiscal year to a total at year's end of 
63,035, an increase of 19.8%. 



87 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1980-81 - 1989-90 




Number 

of 

Cases 



End Pending 



120,000 



90,000 



60,000 



30,000 




80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 



Superior court filings have increased in each of the last 
six years, with growth rates of 11.8% from fiscal year 
1987-88 to fiscal year 1988-89, and 8.5% from fiscal year 
1988-89 to fiscal year 1989-90. Superior court disposi- 
tions have also increased, but not as quickly, resulting in 



an increase in the number of cases pending at the end of 
each of the past six years. There were 63,035 cases 
pending in superior court on June 30, 1990, an increase 
of 19.8% over the year before. 



88 



SUPERIOR COURT CASELOAD 
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



69,810 



17,078 



19,431 ,oco n 

^^^ 17 929 1 °>- ) °" 



Civil 



63,920 



23,729 



29,619 



38,974 



35,938 



11,800 



14,836 
from] 



I Begin Pending 



Felony Misdemeanor 

I Filings Lj Dispositions E23 End Pending 



The number of cases pending in superior court on June 
30, 1990, increased in all case categories over the year 
before. Pending felonies increased by 24.8%, pending 
misdemeanors by 25.7%, and pending civil cases by 



8.8%. Compared to last year, filings and dispositions 
increased in all superior court case categories except 
misdemeanor dispositions, which declined by 234 cases. 



89 



MEDIAN AGES OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

Median Ages (in Days) of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 



CIVIL 



FELONY 



MISDEMEANOR 




225.0 



Median Ages (in Days) of Cases Disposed During 1989-90 



CIVIL 



FELONY 



MISDEMEANOR 




271.0 



The median age is that age with respect to which half the 
cases in the category are younger and half are older. As 
shown, the median ages of civil superior court cases 
pending and disposed during 1989-90 are greater than 
the corresponding ages of felony and misdemeanor 



cases. The median age of pending civil cases increased 
from 219 days on June 30, 1989, to 225 days on June 30, 
1990. The median age of civil cases at disposition 
decreased from 297 days in fiscal year 1988-89 to 271 
days in fiscal year 1989-90. 



90 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1980-81 - 1989-90 




Number 

of 

Cases 



End Pending 



Dispositions 



20,000 



15,000 



10,000 



5,000 



80-81 



81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 



During fiscal year 1989-90, civil filings in the superior 
courts increased by 10.4% over the previous fiscal year, 
while dispositions increased by 7.7%. There were 19,431 
civil cases filed and 17,929 disposed in the superior 



courts during 1989-90. The difference accounts for the 
8.8% increase in the number of cases pending June 30, 
1990, as compared to the number pending on July 1, 
1989. 



91 



FILINGS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS BY TYPE OF CASE 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Other (2,464) 



Administrative Appeals 
(436) 



Real Property (1,234) 



Other Negligence 
(1,996) 




Contract (5,841) 



Collection on Account 
(1,281) 



Motor Vehicle 
Negligence (6,179) 



While total civil filings in superior court increased 10.4% 
in fiscal year 1989-90, non-motor vehicle negligence, the 
category which includes professional malpractice, con- 
tinued to decline in number, from 2,352 in fiscal year 
1987-88 to 2,180 in fiscal year 1988-89 to 1,996 in fiscal 



year 1989-90. Most of the civil filings' growth came in 
contract cases, which increased from 4,558 in 1988-89 to 
5,841 in 1989-90, a 28.1% increase. (The "other" category 
includes non-negligent torts such as conversion of pro- 
perty, civil assault, and civil fraud.) 



92 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 1 














Camden 


9 


4 


13 


3 


23.1% 


10 


Chowan 


29 


40 


69 


38 


55.1% 


31 


Currituck 


66 


52 


118 


51 


43.2% 


67 


Dare 


143 


156 


299 


127 


42.5% 


172 


Gates 


12 


16 


28 


9 


32.1% 


19 


Pasquotank 


75 


71 


146 


57 


39.0% 


89 


Perquimans 


30 


20 


50 


16 


32.0% 


34 


District Totals 


364 


359 


723 


301 


41.6% 


422 


District 2 














Beaufort 


60 


71 


131 


59 


45.0% 


72 


Hyde 


20 


17 


37 


13 


35.1% 


24 


Martin 


41 


54 


95 


36 


37.9% 


59 


Tyrrell 


5 


6 


11 


3 


27.3% 


8 


Washington 


29 


28 


57 


24 


42.1% 


33 


District Totals 


155 


176 


331 


135 


40.8% 


196 


District 3A 














Pitt 


240 


323 


563 


342 


60.7% 


221 


District 3B 














Carteret 


176 


207 


383 


206 


53.8% 


177 


Craven 


228 


237 


465 


260 


55.9% 


205 


Pamlico 


20 


19 


39 


21 


53.8% 


18 


District Totals 


424 


463 


887 


487 


54.9% 


400 


District 4A 














Duplin 


102 


83 


185 


88 


47.6% 


97 


Jones 


20 


14 


34 


10 


29.4% 


24 


Sampson 


60 


95 


155 


87 


56.1% 


68 


District Totals 


182 


192 


374 


185 


49.5% 


189 


District 4B 














Onslow 


405 


295 


700 


332 


47.4% 


368 


District 5 














New Hanover 


520 


465 


985 


403 


40.9% 


582 


Pender 


59 


72 


131 


57 


43.5% 


74 


District Totals 


579 


537 


1,116 


460 


41.2% 


656 


District 6A 














Halifax 


93 


139 


232 


106 


45.7% 


126 



93 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 6B 














Bertie 


23 


44 


67 


21 


31.3% 


46 


Hertford 


47 


26 


73 


28 


38.4% 


45 


Northampton 


21 


35 


56 


22 


39.3% 


34 


District Totals 


91 


105 


196 


71 


36.2% 


125 


District 7A 














Nash 


156 


223 


379 


220 


58.0% 


159 


District 7B-C 














Edgecombe 


102 


132 


234 


125 


53.4% 


109 


Wilson 


131 


160 


291 


141 


48.5% 


150 


District Totals 


233 


292 


525 


266 


50.7% 


259 


District 8A 














Greene 


26 


26 


52 


22 


42.3% 


30 


Lenoir 


167 


194 


361 


175 


48.5% 


186 


District Totals 


193 


220 


413 


197 


47.7% 


216 


District 8B 














Wayne 


261 


278 


539 


249 


46.2% 


290 


District 9 














Franklin 


68 


56 


124 


67 


54.0% 


57 


Granville 


65 


54 


119 


54 


45.4% 


65 


Person 


54 


57 


111 


40 


36.0% 


71 


Vance 


93 


82 


175 


75 


42.9% 


100 


Warren 


46 


24 


70 


34 


48.6% 


36 


District Totals 


326 


273 


599 


270 


45.1% 


329 


District 10A-D 














Wake 


1,831 


1,898 


3,729 


1,771 


47.5% 


1,958 


District 11 














Harnett 


144 


170 


314 


169 


53.8% 


145 


Johnston 


243 


267 


510 


253 


49.6% 


257 


Lee 


82 


99 


181 


95 


52.5% 


86 


District Totals 


469 


536 


1,005 


517 


51.4% 


488 


District 12A-C 














Cumberland 


419 


559 


978 


544 


55.6% 


434 



94 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 13 














Bladen 


49 


58 


107 


47 


43.9% 


60 


Brunswick 


129 


132 


261 


112 


42.9% 


149 


Columbus 


177 


125 


302 


128 


42.4% 


174 


District Totals 


355 


315 


670 


287 


42.8% 


383 


District 14 A -B 














Durham 


570 


676 


1,246 


633 


50.8% 


613 


District 15A 














Alamance 


189 


256 


445 


200 


44.9% 


245 


District 15B 


' 












Chatham 


50 


65 


115 


59 


51.3% 


56 


Orange 


176 


235 


411 


196 


47.7% 


215 


District Totals 


226 


300 


526 


255 


48.5% 


271 


District 16A 














Hoke 


13 


18 


31 


15 


48.4% 


16 


Scotland 


58 


66 


124 


61 


49.2% 


63 


District Totals 


71 


84 


155 


76 


49.0% 


79 


District 16B 














Robeson 


294 


345 


639 


345 


54.0% 


294 


District 17A 














Caswell 


17 


22 


39 


23 


59.0% 


16 


Rockingham 


84 


147 


231 


132 


57.1% 


99 


District Totals 


101 


169 


270 


155 


57.4% 


115 


District 17B 














Stokes 


7 


41 


48 


18 


37.5% 


30 


Surry 


94 


149 


243 


130 


53.5% 


113 


District Totals 


101 


190 


291 


148 


50.9% 


143 


District 18A-E 














Guilford 


1,056 


1,363 


2,419 


1,205 


49.8% 


1,214 


District 19A 














Cabarrus 


170 


194 


364 


207 


56.9% 


157 


District 19B 














Montgomery 


31 


37 


68 


32 


47.1% 


36 


Randolph 


126 


171 


297 


144 


48.5% 


153 


District Totals 


157 


208 


365 


176 


48.2% 


189 



95 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 19C 














Rowan 


163 


181 


344 


185 


53.8% 


159 


District 20A 














Anson 


45 


63 


108 


57 


52.8% 


51 


Moore 


127 


140 


267 


121 


45.3% 


146 


Richmond 


101 


97 


198 


91 


46.0% 


107 


District Totals 


273 


300 


573 


269 


46.9% 


304 


District 20B 














Stanly 


100 


90 


190 


89 


46.8% 


101 


Union 


201 


182 


383 


192 


50.1% 


191 


District Totals 


301 


272 


573 


281 


49.0% 


292 


District 21A-D 














Forsyth 


711 


928 


1,639 


897 


54.7% 


742 


District 22 














Alexander 


37 


46 


83 


49 


59.0% 


34 


Davidson 


139 


178 


317 


173 


54.6% 


144 


Davie 


34 


61 


95 


44 


46.3% 


51 


Iredell 


157 


234 


391 


216 


55.2% 


175 


District Totals 


367 


519 


886 


482 


54.4% 


404 


District 23 














Alleghany 


9 


25 


34 


16 


47.1% 


18 


Ashe 


18 


22 


40 


22 


55.0% 


18 


Wilkes 


162 


142 


304 


170 


55.9% 


134 


Yadkin 


38 


49 


87 


50 


57.5% 


37 


District Totals 


227 


238 


465 


258 


55.5% 


207 


District 24 














Avery 


33 


32 


65 


32 


49.2% 


33 


Madison 


37 


38 


75 


35 


46.7% 


40 


Mitchell 


24 


30 


54 


20 


37.0% 


34 


Watauga 


90 


90 


180 


87 


48.3% 


93 


Yancey 


19 


26 


45 


28 


62.2% 


17 


District Totals 


203 


216 


419 


202 


48.2% 


217 


District 25A 














Burke 


144 


220 


364 


187 


51.4% 


177 


Caldwell 


175 


189 


364 


197 


54.1% 


167 


District Totals 


319 


409 


728 


384 


52.7% 


344 



96 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 25B 














Catawba 


271 


455 


726 


335 


46.1% 


391 


District 26 A -C 














Mecklenburg 


2,772 


2,898 


5,670 


2,506 


44.2% 


3,164 


District 27A 














Gaston 


401 


570 


971 


607 


62.5% 


364 


District 27B 














Cleveland 


145 


185 


330 


156 


47.3% 


174 


Lincoln 


93 


105 


198 


90 


45.5% 


108 


District Totals 


238 


290 


528 


246 


46.6% 


282 


District 28 














Buncombe 


408 


536 


944 


534 


56.6% 


410 


District 29 














Henderson 


208 


127 


335 


152 


45.4% 


183 


McDowell 


54 


59 


113 


45 


39.8% 


68 


Polk 


15 


26 


41 


18 


43.9% 


23 


Rutherford 


68 


75 


143 


71 


49.7% 


72 


Transylvania 


49 


51 


100 


38 


38.0% 


62 


District Totals 


394 


338 


732 


324 


44.3% 


408 


District 30A 














Cherokee 


32 


40 


72 


30 


41.7% 


42 


Clay 


12 


15 


27 


11 


40.7% 


16 


Graham 


17 


17 


34 


16 


47.1% 


18 


Macon 


71 


49 


120 


48 


40.0% 


72 


Swain 


22 


18 


40 


13 


32.5% 


27 


District Totals 


154 


139 


293 


118 


40.3% 


175 


District 30B 














Haywood 


118 


120 


238 


117 


49.2% 


121 


Jackson 


47 


54 


101 


44 


43.6% 


57 


District Totals 


165 


174 


339 


161 


47.5% 


178 


State Totals 


17,078 


19,431 


36,509 


17,929 


49.1% 


18,580 



97 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Voluntary Dismissal 
(9,687) 




Final Order or Judgment 

Without Trial (Judge) 

(3,038) 



Clerk (1,479) 



Other 

(743) 

Trial by Jury 
(868) 



Trial by Judge (2,1 14) 



Compared to 1 988-89, civil dispositions in superior court 
increased by 7.7%, from 16,653 to 17,929. Although all 
"manner of disposition" categories showed increases, 
dispositions by clerks increased the most. In 1988-89, 
clerks disposed 1,169 cases, whereas in 1989-90, they 



disposed 1,479 cases, an increase of 26.5%. (The "other" 
category includes miscellaneous dispositions such as 
discontinuances for lack of service of process under Civil 
Rule 4(e), dismissal on motion of the court, and removal 
to federal court.) 



98 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











Judge's 
















Final Order 










Trial by 


Voluntary 


or Judgment 






Total 




Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Dispositions 


District 1 
















Camden 








1 


2 








3 


Chowan 


1 


11 


13 


1 


7 


5 


38 


Currituck 





7 


20 


22 


2 





51 


Dare 


2 


8 


62 


26 


20 


9 


127 


Gates 





5 


4 











9 


Pasquotank 





9 


35 


5 


5 


3 


57 


Perquimans 





3 


10 


1 





2 


16 


District Totals 


3 


43 


145 


57 


34 


19 


301 


% of Total 


1.0% 


14.3% 


48.2% 


18.9% 


11.3% 


6.3% 


100.0% 


District 2 
















Beaufort 


6 


2 


32 


16 


2 


1 


50 


Hyde 








9 


3 


1 





13 


Martin 


2 


5 


25 


4 








36 


Tyrrell 








3 











3 


Washington 





1 


17 


2 


1 


3 


24 


District Totals 


8 


8 


86 


25 


4 


4 


135 


% of Total 


5.9% 


5.9% 


63.7% 


18.5% 


3.0% 


3.0% 


100.0% 


District 3A 
















Pitt 


3 


103 


205 


4 


17 


10 


342 


% of Total 


0.9% 


30.1% 


59.9% 


1.2% 


5.0% 


2.9% 


100.0% 


District 3B 
















Carteret 


13 


31 


110 


20 


17 


15 


206 


Craven 


10 


50 


117 


33 


40 


10 


260 


Pamlico 


3 





13 


3 


1 


1 


21 


District Totals 


26 


81 


240 


56 


58 


26 


487 


% of Total 


5.3% 


16.6% 


49.3% 


11.5% 


11.9% 


5.3% 


100.0% 


District 4A 
















Duplin 


9 


9 


52 


16 


2 





88 


Jones 





1 


7 


2 








10 


Sampson 


1 


21 


49 


5 


7 


4 


87 


District Totals 


10 


31 


108 


23 


9 


4 


185 


% of Total 


5.4% 


16.8% 


58.4% 


12.4% 


4.9% 


2.2% 


100.0% 


District 4B 
















Onslow 


10 


41 


221 


29 


15 


16 


332 


% of Total 


3.0% 


12.3% 


66.6% 


8.7% 


4.5% 


4.8% 


100.0% 



99 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Judge's 



District 5 
New Hanover 

Pender 


Trial by 
Jury Judge 

15 16 
4 15 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 

235 
26 


Final Order 
or Judgment 
without Trial 

107 
7 


Clerk 

20 




Other 

10 
5 


Total 
Dispositions 

403 

57 


District Totals 
% of Total 


19 
4.1% 


J] 

6.7% 


261 
56.7% 


114 
24.8% 


20 
4.3% 


15 
3.3% 


460 
100.0% 


District 6A 

Halifax 

% of Total 


4 
3.8% 


23 

21.7% 


69 
65.1% 


2 
1.9% 


7 
6.6% 


1 
0.9% 


106 
100.0% 


District 6B 

Bertie 

Hertford 

Northampton 


2 
2 
1 



6 
4 


14 
16 
11 


3 
3 
2 


2 
1 
3 





1 


21 
28 
22 


District Totals 
% of Total 


5 
7.0% 


10 
14.1% 


41 
57.7% 


8 
11.3% 


6 
8.5% 


1 
1.4% 


71 
100.0% 


District 7A 

Nash 

% of Total 


11 
5.0% 


14 
6.4% 


115 
52.3% 


48 
21.8% 


26 
11.8% 


6 
2.7% 


220 
100.0% 


District 7B-C 

Edgecombe 
Wilson 


4 
12 


9 

17 


88 
93 


19 

8 


2 
7 


3 
4 


125 
141 


District Totals 
% of Total 


16 
6.0% 


26 
9.8% 


181 
68.0% 


27 
10.2% 


9 

3.4% 


7 
2.6% 


266 

100.0% 


District 8A 

Greene 
Lenoir 


1 
9 



10 


17 
101 


2 

27 


2 
28 







22 

175 


District Totals 
% of Total 


10 
5.1% 


10 
5.1% 


118 
59.9% 


29 
14.7% 


30 
15.2% 



0.0% 


197 
100.0% 


District 8B 

Wayne 

% of Total 


12 
4.8% 


36 
14.5% 


157 
63.1% 


26 
10.4% 


18 
7.2% 



0.0% 


249 
100.0% 



100 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Judge's 











Final Order 










Trial 


by 


Voluntary 


or Judgment 






Total 




Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Dispositions 


District 9 
















Franklin 





8 


47 


6 


5 


1 


67 


Granville 


4 


1 


28 


14 


1 


6 


54 


Person 


3 





24 


6 


2 


5 


40 


Vance 


1 


17 


35 


11 


5 


6 


75 


Warren 


3 


1 


18 


10 


2 





34 


District Totals 


11 


27 


152 


47 


15 


18 


270 


% of Total 


4.1% 


10.0% 


56.3% 


17.4% 


5.6% 


6.7% 


100.0% 


District 10A-D 
















Wake 


56 


25 


851 


546 


213 


80 


1,771 


% of Total 


3.2% 


1.4% 


48.1% 


30.8% 


12.0% 


4.5% 


100.0% 


District 11 
















Harnett 


11 


18 


91 


45 


2 


2 


169 


Johnston 


22 


13 


140 


46 


16 


16 


253 


Lee 


3 


23 


38 


27 


4 





95 


District Totals 


36 


54 


269 


118 


22 


18 


517 


% of Total 


7.0% 


10.4% 


52.0% 


22.8% 


4.3% 


3.5% 


100.0% 


District 12A-C 
















Cumberland 


22 


61 


321 


69 


39 


32 


544 


% of Total 


4.0% 


11.2% 


59.0% 


12.7% 


7.2% 


5.9% 


100.0% 


District 13 
















Bladen 


4 


1 


29 


8 


3 


2 


47 


Brunswick 


10 


12 


65 


19 


5 


1 


112 


Columbus 


14 


25 


71 


8 


8 


2 


128 


District Totals 


28 


38 


165 


35 


16 


5 


287 


% of Total 


9.8% 


13.2% 


57.5% 


12.2% 


5.6% 


1.7% 


100.0% 


District 14A-B 
















Durham 


27 


111 


317 


57 


59 


62 


633 


% of Total 


4.3% 


17.5% 


50.1% 


9.0% 


9.3% 


9.8% 


100.0% 


District 15A 
















Alamance 


7 


16 


88 


40 


20 


29 


200 


% of Total 


3.5% 


8.0% 


44.0% 


20.0% 


10.0% 


14.5% 


100.0% 



101 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Judge's 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 


Trial bv 
Jury Judge 

6 7 
9 62 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 

23 
100 


Final Order 
or Judgment 
without Trial 

17 
1 


Clerk 

4 
17 


Other 

2 
7 


Total 
Dispositions 

59 
196 


District Totals 
% of Total 


15 

5.9% 


69 

27.1% 


123 

48.2% 


18 
7.1% 


21 

8.2% 


9 
3.5% 


255 
100.0% 


District 16A 
Hoke 

Scotland 



3 


6 

8 


8 
38 



9 


1 
2 




1 


15 

61 


District Totals 
% of Total 


3 
3.9% 


14 
18.4% 


46 
60.5% 


9 

11.8% 


3 
3.9% 


1 
1.3% 


76 
100.0% 


District 16B 

Robeson 

% of Total 


13 

3.8% 


84 
24.3% 


218 
63.2% 


5 
1.4% 


17 
4.9% 


8 
2.3% 


345 
100.0% 


District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 



16 


9 

22 


10 
62 


3 
8 


1 
20 




4 


23 
132 


District Totals 
% of Total 


16 
10.3% 


31 

20.0% 


72 
46.5% 


11 
7.1% 


21 
13.5% 


4 
2.6% 


155 
100.0% 


District 17B 

Stokes 
Surry 


1 
6 


1 
6 


14 
72 



39 




5 


2 
2 


18 
130 


District Totals 
% of Total 


7 
4.7% 


7 
4.7% 


86 

58.1% 


39 

26.4% 


5 
3.4% 


4 
2.7% 


148 
100.0% 


District 18A-E 

Guilford 

% of Total 


24 
2.0% 


195 
16.2% 


660 

54.8% 


180 
14.9% 


95 
7.9% 


51 

4.2% 


1,205 
100.0% 


District 19A 

Cabarrus 

% of Total 


12 
5.8% 


9 

4.3% 


137 
66.2% 


29 
14.0% 


9 
4.3% 


11 
5.3% 


207 
100.0% 


District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 




14 


11 

27 


18 

72 



12 


2 
10 


1 
9 


32 
144 


District Totals 
% of Total 


14 
8.0% 


38 

21.6% 


90 
51.1% 


12 
6.8% 


12 
6.8% 


10 
5.7% 


176 
100.0% 



102 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











Judge's 
















Final Order 










Trial bv 


Voluntary 


or Judgment 






Total 




Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Dispositions 


District 19C 
















Rowan 


16 


14 


110 


32 


6 


7 


185 


% of Total 


8.6% 


7.6% 


59.5% 


17.3% 


3.2% 


3.8% 


100.0% 


District 20A 
















Anson 


7 


12 


28 


8 


2 





57 


Moore 


4 


21 


72 


8 


9 


7 


121 


Richmond 


3 


10 


63 


7 


5 


3 


91 


District Totals 


14 


43 


163 


23 


16 


10 


269 


% of Total 


5.2% 


16.0% 


60.6% 


8.6% 


5.9% 


3.7% 


100.0% 


District 20B 
















Stanly 


3 


15 


54 


11 


4 


2 


89 


Union 


10 


36 


112 


13 


15 


6 


192 


District Totals 


13 


51 


166 


24 


19 


8 


281 


% of Total 


4.6% 


18.1% 


59.1% 


8.5% 


6.8% 


2.8% 


100.0% 


District 21A-D 
















Forsyth 


50 


90 


440 


161 


90 


66 


897 


% of Total 


5.6% 


10.0% 


49.1% 


17.9% 


10.0% 


7.4% 


100.0% 


District 22 
















Alexander 


4 


1 


27 


13 


4 





49 


Davidson 


7 


40 


105 


12 


4 


5 


173 


Davie 


1 


9 


28 


2 


2 


2 


44 


Iredell 


16 


17 


110 


52 


13 


8 


216 


District Totals 


28 


67 


270 


79 


23 


15 


482 


% of Total 


5.8% 


13.9% 


56.0% 


16.4% 


4.8% 


3.1% 


100.0% 


District 23 
















Alleghany 





3 


8 


3 


2 





16 


Ashe 





11 


9 


1 


1 





22 


Wilkes 


7 


50 


82 


8 


13 


10 


170 


Yadkin 


4 


7 


26 


8 


2 


3 


50 


District Totals 


11 


71 


125 


20 


18 


13 


258 


% of Total 


4.3% 


27.5% 


48.4% 


7.8% 


7.0% 


5.0% 


100.0% 



103 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Judge's 











Final Order 










Trial bv 


Voluntary 


or Judgment 






Total 




Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Dispositions 


District 24 
















Avery 





10 


11 


5 


3 


3 


32 


Madison 


5 


3 


12 


12 





3 


35 


Mitchell 





2 


9 


4 


3 


2 


20 


Watauga 


5 


5 


47 


16 


5 


9 


87 


Yancey 


3 


4 


16 


1 





4 


28 


District Totals 


13 


24 


95 


38 


11 


21 


202 


% of Total 


6.4% 


11.9% 


47.0% 


18.8% 


5.4% 


10.4% 


100.0% 


District 25A 
















Burke 


9 


38 


97 


22 


15 


6 


187 


Caldwell 


18 


4 


101 


56 


15 


3 


197 


District Totals 


27 


42 


198 


78 


30 


9 


384 


% of Total 


7.0% 


10.9% 


51.6% 


20.3% 


7.8% 


2.3% 


100.0% 


District 25B 
















Catawba 


12 


31 


168 


84 


37 


3 


335 


% of Total 


3.6% 


9.3% 


50.1% 


25.1% 


11.0% 


0.9% 


100.0% 


District 26A-C 
















Mecklenburg 


106 


170 


1,443 


479 


284 


24 


2,506 


% of Total 


4.2% 


6.8% 


57.6% 


19.1% 


11.3% 


1.0% 


100.0% 


District 27A 
















Gaston 


41 


101 


317 


69 


30 


49 


607 


% of Total 


6.8% 


16.6% 


52.2% 


11.4% 


4.9% 


8.1% 


100.0% 


District 27B 
















Cleveland 


14 


19 


79 


21 


15 


8 


156 


Lincoln 


2 


16 


52 


14 


5 


1 


90 


District Totals 


16 


35 


131 


35 


20 


9 


246 


% of Total 


6.5% 


14.2% 


53.3% 


14.2% 


8.1% 


3.7% 


100.0% 


District 28 
















Buncombe 


47 


20 


245 


167 


42 


13 


534 


% of Total 


8.8% 


3.7% 


45.9% 


31.3% 


7.9% 


2.4% 


100.0% 



104 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











Judge's 
















Final Order 










Trial by 


Voluntary 


or Judgment 






Total 




Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Dispositions 


District 29 
















Henderson 


9 


39 


59 


26 


7 


12 


152 


McDowell 


3 


8 


20 


2 


4 


8 


45 


Polk 





4 


10 


3 





1 


18 


Rutherford 


1 


23 


41 


2 


2 


2 


71 


Transylvania 


3 


5 


22 


7 





1 


38 


District Totals 


16 


79 


152 


40 


13 


24 


324 


% of Total 


4.9% 


24.4% 


46.9% 


12.3% 


4.0% 


7.4% 


100.0% 


District 30A 
















Cherokee 


5 


1 


14 


6 


4 





30 


Clay 


3 





3 


4 


1 





11 


Graham 


1 


4 


7 


3 





1 


16 


Macon 


6 


3 


18 


9 


1 


11 


48 


Swain 


3 





8 


2 








13 


District Totals 


18 


8 


50 


24 


6 


12 


118 


% of Total 


15.3% 


6.8% 


42.4% 


20.3% 


5.1% 


10.2% 


100.0% 


District 30B 
















Haywood 


11 


28 


53 


13 


12 





117 


Jackson 


1 


4 


19 


9 


2 


9 


44 


District Totals 


12 


32 


72 


22 


14 


9 


161 


% of Total 


7.5% 


19.9% 


44.7% 


13.7% 


8.7% 


5.6% 


100.0% 


State Totals 


868 


2,114 


9,687 


3,038 


1,479 


743 


17,929 


% of Total 


4.8% 


11.8% 


54.0% 


16.9% 


8.2% 


4.1% 


100.0% 



105 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 







Ages 


of Pending < 


"ases (Months) 






Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 1 




















Camden 


4 


40.0% 


2 


20.0% 


4 


40.0% 


10 


565.7 


447.0 


Chowan 


20 


64.5% 


8 


25.8% 


3 


9.7% 


31 


321.9 


206.0 


Currituck 


41 


61.2% 


16 


23.9% 


10 


14.9% 


67 


376.0 


271.0 


Dare 


105 


61.0% 


44 


25.6% 


23 


13.4% 


172 


346.9 


276.0 


Gates 


12 


63.2% 


5 


26.3% 


2 


10.5% 


19 


428.4 


285.0 


Pasquotank 


52 


58.4% 


25 


28.1% 


12 


13.5% 


89 


342.6 


243.0 


Perquimans 


15 


44.1% 


10 


29.4% 


9 


26.5% 


34 


482.7 


434.5 


District Totals 


249 


59.0% 


110 


26.1% 


63 


14.9% 


422 


368.6 


290.0 


District 2 




















Beaufort 


52 


72.2% 


13 


18.1% 


7 


9.7% 


72 


323.3 


214.0 


Hyde 


11 


45.8% 


7 


29.2% 


6 


25.0% 


24 


552.1 


398.0 


Martin 


41 


69.5% 


11 


18.6% 


7 


11.9% 


59 


372.7 


205.0 


Tyrrell 


4 


50.0% 


3 


37.5% 


1 


12.5% 


8 


537.9 


340.5 


Washington 


18 


54.5% 


11 


33.3% 


4 


12.1% 


33 


370.4 


324.0 


District Totals 


126 


64.3% 


45 


23.0% 


25 


12.8% 


196 


382.9 


254.5 


District 3A 




















Pitt 


172 


77.8% 


38 


17.2% 


11 


5.0% 


221 


255.1 


183.0 


District 3B 




















Carteret 


127 


71.8% 


39 


22.0% 


11 


6.2% 


177 


284.9 


221.0 


Craven 


138 


67.3% 


48 


23.4% 


19 


9.3% 


205 


302.2 


233.0 


Pamlico 


13 


72.2% 


4 


22.2% 


1 


5.6% 


18 


293.5 


221.5 


District Totals 


278 


69.5% 


91 


22.8% 


31 


7.8% 


400 


294.2 


230.0 


District 4A 




















Duplin 


53 


59.8% 


30 


30.9% 


9 


9.3% 


97 


350.7 


282.0 


Jones 


9 


37.5% 


3 


12.5% 


12 


50.0% 


24 


973.5 


677.5 


Sampson 


53 


77.9% 


9 


13.2% 


6 


8.8% 


68 


280.8 


186.5 


District Totals 


120 


63.5% 


42 


22.2% 


27 


14.3% 


189 


404.6 


276.0 


District 4B 




















Onslow 


222 


60.3% 


101 


27.4% 


45 


12.2% 


368 


359.5 


268.5 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


306 


52.6% 


204 


35.1% 


72 


12.4% 


582 


376.3 


339.5 


Pender 


53 


71.6% 


14 


18.9% 


7 


9.5% 


74 


284.1 


204.0 


District Totals 


359 


54.7% 


218 


33.2% 


79 


12.0% 


656 


365.9 


320.0 


District 6A 




















Halifax 


91 


72.2% 


22 


17.5% 


13 


10.3% 


126 


274.9 


185.0 



106 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 










Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 












Ag( 


's of Pending 


Cases (Months) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


32 


69.6% 


7 


15.2% 


7 


15.2% 


46 


384.3 


244.0 


Hertford 


19 


42.2% 


19 


42.2% 


7 


15.6% 


45 


417.4 


425.0 


Northampton 


24 


70.6% 


8 


23.5% 


2 


5.9% 


34 


257.2 


191.0 


District Totals 


75 


60.0% 


34 


27.2% 


16 


12.8% 


125 


361.7 


291.0 


District 7 A 




















Nash 


120 


75.5% 


32 


20.1% 


7 


4.4% 


159 


236.4 


148.0 


District 7B-C 




















Edgecombe 


87 


79.8% 


14 


12.8% 


8 


7.3% 


109 


262.2 


193.0 


Wilson 


105 


70.0% 


31 


20.7% 


14 


9.3% 


150 


326.4 


238.0 


District Totals 


192 


74.1% 


45 


17.4% 


22 


8.5% 


259 


299.4 


212.0 


District 8A 




















Greene 


21 


70.0% 


5 


16.7% 


4 


13.3% 


30 


325.6 


263.5 


Lenoir 


123 


66.1% 


51 


27.4% 


12 


6.5% 


186 


288.0 


233.5 


District Totals 


144 


66.7% 


56 


25.9% 


16 


7.4% 


216 


293.2 


242.5 


District 8B 




















Wayne 


179 


61.7% 


80 


27.6% 


31 


10.7% 


290 


352.7 


278.0 


District 9 




















Franklin 


38 


66.7% 


17 


29.8% 


2 


3.5% 


57 


303.0 


246.0 


Granville 


38 


58.5% 


21 


32.3% 


6 


9.2% 


65 


318.9 


271.0 


Person 


43 


60.6% 


23 


32.4% 


5 


7.0% 


71 


350.7 


296.0 


Vance 


59 


59.0% 


32 


32.0% 


9 


9.0% 


100 


362.7 


344.5 


Warren 


15 


41.7% 


16 


44.4% 


5 


13.9% 


36 


514.6 


389.5 


District Totals 


193 


58.7% 


109 


33.1% 


27 


8.2% 


329 


357.7 


311.0 


District 10 A -D 




















Wake 


1,255 


64.1% 


532 


27.2% 


171 


8.7% 


1,958 


321.1 


264.0 


District 11 




















Harnett 


103 


71.0% 


37 


25.5% 


5 


3.4% 


145 


255.5 


207.0 


Johnston 


185 


72.0% 


54 


21.0% 


18 


7.0% 


257 


272.6 


191.0 


Lee 


63 


73.3% 


20 


23.3% 


3 


3.5% 


86 


263.1 


224.0 


District Totals 


351 


71.9% 


111 


22.7% 


26 


5.3% 


488 


265.9 


205.5 


District 12A-C 




















Cumberland 


356 


82.0% 


69 


15.9% 


9 


2.1% 


434 


215.7 


185.0 


District 13 




















Bladen 


40 


66.7% 


18 


30.0% 


2 


3.3% 


60 


298.8 


295.0 


Brunswick 


87 


58.4% 


43 


28.9% 


19 


12.8% 


149 


361.1 


283.0 


Columbus 


95 


54.6% 


44 


25.3% 


35 


20.1% 


174 


406.4 


317.0 


District Totals 


222 


58.0% 


105 


27.4% 


56 


14.6% 


383 


371.9 


297.0 



107 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 








Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 


Total 
Pending 

613 


Mean 
Age (Days) 

271.5 


Median 


District 14A-B 

Durham 


<12 

440 


% 
71.8% 


12-24 

131 


% 
21.4% 


>24 

42 


% 
6.9% 


Age (Days) 
176.0 


District 15A 

Alamance 


179 


73.1% 


62 


25.3% 


4 


1.6% 


245 


250.8 


221.0 


District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 


47 

170 


83.9% 
79.1% 


9 
43 


16.1% 
20.0% 




2 


0.0% 
0.9% 


56 
215 


195.5 

220.1 


143.5 
171.0 


District Totals 


217 


80.1% 


52 


19.2% 


2 


0.7% 


271 


215.0 


169.0 


District 16A 
Hoke 

Scotland 


11 

48 


68.8% 
76.2% 


5 
8 


31.3% 
12.7% 




7 


0.0% 
11.1% 


16 
63 


274.2 
293.4 


236.0 
149.0 


District Totals 


59 


74.7% 


13 


16.5% 


7 


8.9% 


79 


289.5 


165.0 


District 16B 

Robeson 


227 


77.2% 


46 


15.6% 


21 


7.1% 


294 


246.7 


162.5 


District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 


14 
87 


87.5% 
87.9% 


1 

11 


6.3% 
11.1% 


1 
1 


6.3% 
1.0% 


16 
99 


243.4 
191.8 


169.5 
141.0 


District Totals 


101 


87.8% 


12 


10.4% 


2 


1.7% 


115 


199.0 


145.0 


District 17B 

Stokes 
Surry 


30 

103 


100.0% 
91.2% 



10 


0.0% 
8.8% 






0.0% 
0.0% 


30 
113 


126.8 
160.2 


112.5 
134.0 


District Totals 


133 


93.0% 


10 


7.0% 





0.0% 


143 


153.2 


124.0 


District 18A-E 

Guilford 


923 


76.0% 


260 


21.4% 


31 


2.6% 


1,214 


249.4 


206.0 


District 19A 

Cabarrus 


131 


83.4% 


24 


15.3% 


2 


1.3% 


157 


213.8 


193.0 


District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 


25 
121 


69.4% 
79.1% 


9 

26 


25.0% 
17.0% 


2 
6 


5.6% 
3.9% 


36 
153 


297.1 
216.3 


233.5 
149.0 


District Totals 


146 


77.2% 


35 


18.5% 


8 


4.2% 


189 


231.7 


152.0 


District 19C 

Rowan 


131 


82.4% 


25 


15.7% 


3 


1.9% 


159 


224.6 


194.0 


District 20A 

Anson 

Moore 
Richmond 


41 

102 

62 


80.4% 
69.9% 
57.9% 


10 

32 

33 


19.6% 
21.9% 
30.8% 




12 
12 


0.0% 

8.2% 

11.2% 


51 
146 
107 


228.0 
303.3 
367.9 


229.0 
228.0 
284.0 


District Totals 


205 


67.4% 


75 


24.7% 

108 


24 


7.9% 


304 


313.4 


248.0 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 










Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 












Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 20B 




















Stanly 


65 


64.4% 


9 


8.9% 


27 


26.7% 


101 


639.7 


197.0 


Union 


138 


72.3% 


43 


22.5% 


10 


5.2% 


191 


270.1 


197.0 


District Totals 


203 


69.5% 


52 


17.8% 


37 


12.7% 


292 


398.0 


197.0 


District 21A-D 




















Forsyth 


598 


80.6% 


136 


18.3% 


8 


1.1% 


742 


220.1 


171.0 


District 22 




















Alexander 


29 


85.3% 


5 


14.7% 





0.0% 


34 


194.7 


136.0 


Davidson 


127 


88.2% 


16 


11.1% 


1 


0.7% 


144 


196.0 


174.5 


Davie 


44 


86.3% 


6 


11.8% 


1 


2.0% 


51 


228.4 


214.0 


Iredell 


150 


85.7% 


21 


12.0% 


4 


2.3% 


175 


208.9 


155.0 


District Totals 


350 


86.6% 


48 


11.9% 


6 


1.5% 


404 


205.6 


169.5 


District 23 




















Alleghany 


17 


94.4% 


1 


5.6% 





0.0% 


18 


133.1 


87.0 


Ashe 


16 


88.9% 


2 


11.1% 





0.0% 


18 


202.8 


158.0 


Wilkes 


106 


79.1% 


24 


17.9% 


4 


3.0% 


134 


239.5 


214.0 


Yadkin 


30 


81.1% 


7 


18.9% 





0.0% 


37 


200.9 


173.0 


District Totals 


169 


81.6% 


34 


16.4% 


4 


1.9% 


207 


220.1 


176.0 


District 24 




















Avery 


23 


69.7% 


10 


30.3% 





0.0% 


33 


248.6 


225.0 


Madison 


30 


75.0% 


9 


22.5% 


1 


2.5% 


40 


278.4 


217.5 


Mitchell 


24 


70.6% 


7 


20.6% 


3 


8.8% 


34 


312.2 


259.5 


Watauga 


60 


64.5% 


29 


31.2% 


4 


4.3% 


93 


302.3 


259.0 


Yancey 


16 


94.1% 





0.0% 


1 


5.9% 


17 


185.5 


110.0 


District Totals 


153 


70.5% 


55 


25.3% 


9 


4.1% 


217 


282.1 


243.0 


District 25A 




















Burke 


138 


78.0% 


34 


19.2% 


5 


2.8% 


177 


253.2 


200.0 


Caldwell 


124 


74.3% 


33 


19.8% 


10 


6.0% 


167 


268.2 


225.0 


District Totals 


262 


76.2% 


67 


19.5% 


15 


4.4% 


344 


260.5 


207.0 


District 25B 




















Catawba 


322 


82.4% 


50 


12.8% 


19 


4.9% 


391 


241.2 


194.0 


District 26A-C 




















Mecklenburg 


2,011 


63.6% 


776 


24.5% 


377 


11.9% 


3,164 


371.3 


253.5 


District 27A 




















Gaston 


296 


81.3% 


58 


15.9% 


10 


2.7% 


364 


213.7 


145.0 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


129 


74.1% 


31 


17.8% 


14 


8.0% 


174 


265.7 


159.0 


Lincoln 


71 


65.7% 


33 


30.6% 


4 


3.7% 


108 


286.9 


254.5 


District Totals 


200 


70.9% 


64 


22.7% 


18 


6.4% 


282 


273.8 


191.5 



109 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 



District 28 

Buncombe 



<12 

325 



Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



% 
79.3% 



12-24 

60 



% 
14.6% 



>24 
25 



% 
6.1% 



Total 
Pending 

410 



Mean 

Age (Days) 

266.2 



Median 

Age (Days) 

183.0 



District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transvlvania 



88 

40 
20 

54 
42 



48.1% 
58.8% 
87.0% 
75.0% 
67.7% 



61 

21 

1 

17 

14 



33.3% 
30.9% 
4.3% 
23.6% 
22.6% 



34 
7 
2 
1 
6 



18.6% 

10.3% 

8.7% 

1.4% 

9.7% 



183 
68 

23 

72 
62 



429.4 
356.0 
223.1 
240.4 
314.3 



395.0 
261.5 
150.0 
169.0 
236.0 



District Totals 



244 



59.8% 



114 



27.9% 



50 



12.3% 



408 



354.7 



279.5 



District 30A 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 



25 
10 
11 
31 
13 

90 



59.5% 
62.5% 
61.1% 
43.1% 
48.1% 

51.4% 



16 

5 

6 

28 

6 

61 



38.1% 
31.3% 
33.3% 
38.9% 
22.2% 

34.9% 



1 

1 

1 

13 



24 



2.4% 

6.3% 

5.6% 

18.1% 

29.6% 

13.7% 



42 
16 
18 

72 
27 

175 



304.7 
364.3 
356.7 
502.4 
526.7 

431.1 



278.0 
320.5 
273.5 
389.0 
428.0 

352.0 



District 30B 

Haywood 77 

Jackson 37 

District Totals 114 

State Totals 12,933 



63.6% 


37 


30.6% 


7 


5.8% 


121 


64.9% 


12 


21.1% 


8 


14.0% 


57 


64.0% 


49 


27.5% 


15 


8.4% 


178 


69.6% 


4,209 


22.7% 


1,438 


7.7% 


18,580 



315.9 
340.8 

323.8 

303.2 



275.0 
228.0 

259.0 

225.0 



10 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 







Ages o 


f Dispose) 


1 Cases (Mor 


tths) 


% 


Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


Age (Days) 


District 1 




















Camden 


2 


66.7% 





0.0% 


1 


33.3% 


3 


800.3 


277.0 


Chowan 


24 


63.2% 


6 


15.8% 


8 


21.1% 


38 


396.0 


205.5 


Currituck 


22 


43.1% 


20 


39.2% 


9 


17.6% 


51 


456.7 


483.0 


Dare 


84 


66.1% 


29 


22.8% 


14 


11.0% 


127 


327.8 


206.0 


Gates 


6 


66.7% 


3 


33.3% 





0.0% 


9 


290.6 


266.0 


Pasquotank 


34 


59.6% 


14 


24.6% 


9 


15.8% 


57 


353.0 


273.0 


Perquimans 


11 


68.8% 


3 


18.8% 


2 


12.5% 


16 


329.8 


231.5 


District Totals 


183 


60.8% 


75 


24.9% 


43 


14.3% 


301 


366.7 


249.0 


District 2 




















Beaufort 


37 


62.7% 


18 


30.5% 


4 


6.8% 


59 


341.5 


301.0 


Hyde 


9 


69.2% 


2 


15.4% 


2 


15.4% 


13 


459.5 


215.0 


Martin 


22 


61.1% 


9 


25.0% 


5 


13.9% 


36 


409.4 


268.0 


Tyrrell 


2 


66.7% 


1 


33.3% 





0.0% 


3 


225.0 


141.0 


Washington 


18 


75.0% 


3 


12.5% 


3 


12.5% 


24 


292.5 


162.5 


District Totals 


88 


65.2% 


33 


24.4% 


14 


10.4% 


135 


359.7 


245.0 


District 3A 




















Pitt 


239 


69.9% 


82 


24.0% 


21 


6.1% 


342 


275.4 


209.0 


District 3B 




















Carteret 


128 


62.1% 


53 


25.7% 


25 


12.1% 


206 


352.0 


268.5 


Craven 


167 


64.2% 


66 


25.4% 


27 


10.4% 


260 


316.7 


216.0 


Pamlico 


9 


42.9% 


9 


42.9% 


3 


14.3% 


21 


410.3 


377.0 


District Totals 


304 


62.4% 


128 


26.3% 


55 


11.3% 


487 


335.7 


257.0 


District 4A 




















Duplin 


44 


50.0% 


31 


35.2% 


13 


14.8% 


88 


407.5 


369.5 


Jones 


5 


50.0% 


5 


50.0% 





0.0% 


10 


316.0 


286.5 


Sampson 


69 


79.3% 


15 


17.2% 


3 


3.4% 


87 


231.6 


148.0 


District Totals 


118 


63.8% 


51 


27.6% 


16 


8.6% 


185 


319.8 


225.0 


District 4B 




















Onslow 


145 


43.7% 


103 


31.0% 


84 


25.3% 


332 


497.8 


438.5 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


236 


58.6% 


71 


17.6% 


96 


23.8% 


403 


379.6 


279.0 


Pender 


29 


50.9% 


19 


33.3% 


9 


15.8% 


57 


394.1 


322.0 


District Totals 


265 


57.6% 


90 


19.6% 


105 


22.8% 


460 


381.4 


285.5 


District 6A 




















Halifax 


67 


63.2% 


30 


28.3% 


9 


8.5% 


106 


317.5 


264.5 



111 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 








Ages of Cases Di 


sposed July 


1, 1989 


-- June 30, 1990 










Ages 


of Disposed Cases (Month 


s) 


% 


Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


Age (Days) 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


16 


76.2% 


4 


19.0% 


1 


4.8% 


21 


221.0 


94.0 


Hertford 


15 


53.6% 


10 


35.7% 


3 


10.7% 


28 


367.0 


325.5 


Northampton 


15 


68.2% 


3 


13.6% 


4 


18.2% 


22 


369.7 


187.0 


District Totals 


46 


64.8% 


17 


23.9% 


8 


11.3% 


71 


324.7 


246.0 


District 7A 




















Nash 


155 


70.5% 


48 


21.8% 


17 


7.7% 


220 


277.4 


198.5 


District 7B-C 




















Edgecombe 


90 


72.0% 


29 


23.2% 


6 


4.8% 


125 


285.6 


263.0 


Wilson 


92 


65.2% 


42 


29.8% 


7 


5.0% 


141 


296.9 


251.0 


District Totals 


182 


68.4% 


71 


26.7% 


13 


4.9% 


266 


291.6 


254.0 


District 8A 




















Greene 


8 


36.4% 


9 


40.9% 


5 


22.7% 


22 


504.5 


390.0 


Lenoir 


127 


72.6% 


33 


18.9% 


15 


8.6% 


175 


281.7 


200.0 


District Totals 


135 


68.5% 


42 


21.3% 


20 


10.2% 


197 


306.6 


219.0 


District 8B 




















Wayne 


155 


62.2% 


65 


26.1% 


29 


11.6% 


249 


341.5 


259.0 


District 9 




















Franklin 


42 


62.7% 


23 


34.3% 


2 


3.0% 


67 


320.8 


300.0 


Granville 


31 


57.4% 


15 


27.8% 


8 


14.8% 


54 


374.7 


287.5 


Person 


24 


60.0% 


13 


32.5% 


3 


7.5% 


40 


351.1 


267.5 


Vance 


50 


66.7% 


17 


22.7% 


8 


10.7% 


75 


356.4 


309.0 


Warren 


23 


67.6% 


7 


20.6% 


4 


11.8% 


34 


328.9 


253.0 


District Totals 


170 


63.0% 


75 


27.8% 


25 


9.3% 


270 


347.0 


287.0 


District 10A-D 




















Wake 


1,049 


59.2% 


508 


28.7% 


214 


12.1% 


1,771 


353.1 


273.0 


District 11 




















Hamelt 


105 


62.1% 


52 


30.8% 


12 


7.1% 


169 


331.3 


260.0 


Johnston 


147 


58.1% 


63 


24.9% 


43 


17.0% 


253 


365.6 


295.0 


Lee 


59 


62.1% 


30 


31.6% 


6 


6.3% 


95 


311.0 


284.0 


District Totals 


311 


60.2% 


145 


28.0% 


61 


11.8% 


517 


344.3 


285.0 


District 12A-C 




















Cumberland 


376 


69.1% 


149 


27.4% 


19 


3.5% 


544 


289.9 


265.0 


District 13 




















Bladen 


29 


61.7% 


17 


36.2% 


1 


2.1% 


47 


299.9 


301.0 


Brunswick 


68 


60.7% 


29 


25.9% 


15 


13.4% 


112 


344.3 


257.5 


Columbus 


53 


41.4% 


37 


28.9% 


3X 


29.7% 


128 


538.8 


455.0 


District Totals 


150 


52.3% 


83 


28.9% 


54 


18.8% 


287 


423.7 


329.0 



112 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 








Ages of Cases Disposed July 


1, 1989 


-- June 30, 1990 










Ages 


of Disposed Cases (Months) 


% 


Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


Age (Days) 


District 14 A -B 




















Durham 


450 


71.1% 


130 


20.5% 


53 


8.4% 


633 


301.8 


219.0 


District 15A 




















Alamance 


129 


64.5% 


56 


28.0% 


15 


7.5% 


200 


308.9 


273.0 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


36 


61.0% 


23 


39.0% 





0.0% 


59 


307.1 


287.0 


Orange 


124 


63.3% 


63 


32.1% 


9 


4.6% 


196 


320.2 


281.0 


District Totals 


160 


62.7% 


86 


33.7% 


9 


3.5% 


255 


317.2 


285.0 


District 16A 




















Hoke 


11 


73.3% 


4 


26.7% 





0.0% 


15 


282.7 


227.0 


Scotland 


31 


50.8% 


20 


32.8% 


10 


16.4% 


61 


387.6 


353.0 


District Totals 


42 


55.3% 


24 


31.6% 


10 


13.2% 


76 


366.9 


316.0 


District 16B 




















Robeson 


218 


63.2% 


101 


29.3% 


26 


7.5% 


345 


324.2 


308.0 


District 17A 




















Caswell 


16 


69.6% 


6 


26.1% 


1 


4.3% 


23 


319.5 


324.0 


Rockingham 


95 


72.0% 


31 


23.5% 


6 


4.5% 


132 


271.1 


225.5 


District Totals 


111 


71.6% 


37 


23.9% 


7 


4.5% 


155 


278.3 


242.0 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


13 


72.2% 


5 


27.8% 





0.0% 


18 


190.8 


129.5 


Surry 


107 


82.3% 


23 


17.7% 





0.0% 


130 


233.7 


234.0 


District Totals 


120 


81.1% 


28 


18.9% 





0.0% 


148 


228.5 


215.0 


District 18A-E 




















Guilford 


757 


62.8% 


408 


33.9% 


40 


3.3% 


1,205 


289.9 


253.0 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


114 


55.1% 


90 


43.5% 


3 


1.4% 


207 


317.6 


344.0 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 


18 


56.3% 


12 


37.5% 


2 


6.3% 


32 


337.5 


350.5 


Randolph 


88 


61.1% 


51 


35.4% 


5 


3.5% 


144 


309.2 


294.5 


District Totals 


106 


60.2% 


63 


35.8% 


7 


4.0% 


176 


314.4 


301.0 


District 19C 




















Rowan 


123 


66.5% 


60 


32.4% 


2 


1.1% 


185 


302.9 


303.0 


District 20A 




















Anson 


39 


68.4% 


14 


24.6% 


4 


7.0% 


57 


282.9 


257.0 


Moore 


78 


64.5% 


30 


24.8% 


13 


10.7% 


121 


337.6 


274.0 


Richmond 


53 


58.2% 


29 


31.9% 


9 


9.9% 


91 


364.1 


282.0 


District Totals 


170 


63.2% 


73 


27.1% 


26 


9.7% 


269 


335.0 


275.0 



113 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 








Ages of Cases Disposed July 


1, 1989 


-- June 30, 1990 










Ages 


of Disposed Cases (Months) 


% 


Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


Age (Days) 


District 20B 




















Stanly 


46 


51.7% 


28 


31.5% 


15 


16.9% 


89 


456.5 


347.0 


Union 


82 


42.7% 


87 


45.3% 


23 


12.0% 


192 


406.2 


396.5 


District Totals 


128 


45.6% 


115 


40.9% 


38 


13.5% 


281 


422.1 


390.0 


District 21A-D 




















Forsyth 


604 


67.3% 


261 


29.1% 


32 


3.6% 


897 


282.7 


259.0 


District 22 




















Alexander 


33 


67.3% 


15 


30.6% 


1 


2.0% 


49 


272.1 


263.0 


Davidson 


119 


68.8% 


51 


29.5% 


3 


1.7% 


173 


287.0 


285.0 


Davie 


35 


79.5% 


9 


20.5% 





0.0% 


44 


223.8 


205.0 


Iredell 


154 


71.3% 


56 


25.9% 


6 


2.8% 


216 


269.8 


259.0 


District Totals 


341 


70.7% 


131 


27.2% 


10 


2.1% 


482 


272.0 


263.5 


District 23 




















Alleghany 


10 


62.5% 


5 


31.3% 


1 


6.3% 


16 


338.8 


256.5 


Ashe 


13 


59.1% 


9 


40.9% 





0.0% 


22 


329.3 


357.5 


Wilkes 


81 


47.6% 


79 


46.5% 


10 


5.9% 


170 


370.9 


379.5 


Yadkin 


36 


72.0% 


13 


26.0% 


1 


2.0% 


50 


292.4 


257.5 


District Totals 


140 


54.3% 


106 


41.1% 


12 


4.7% 


258 


350.2 


339.0 


District 24 




















Avery 


20 


62.5% 


11 


34.4% 


1 


3.1% 


32 


364.0 


336.0 


Madison 


19 


54.3% 


13 


37.1% 


3 


8.6% 


35 


389.8 


315.0 


Mitchell 


15 


75.0% 


4 


20.0% 


1 


5.0% 


20 


241.2 


173.0 


Watauga 


53 


60.9% 


28 


32.2% 


6 


6.9% 


87 


326.5 


296.0 


Yancey 


16 


57.1% 


9 


32.1% 


3 


10.7% 


28 


354.7 


249.0 


District Totals 


123 


60.9% 


65 


32.2% 


14 


6.9% 


202 


338.9 


287.5 


District 25A 




















Burke 


138 


73.8% 


41 


21.9% 


8 


4.3% 


187 


267.9 


222.0 


Caldwell 


115 


58.4% 


65 


33.0% 


17 


8.6% 


197 


352.5 


295.0 


District Totals 


253 


65.9% 


106 


27.6% 


25 


6.5% 


384 


311.3 


246.5 


District 25B 




















Catawba 


245 


73.1% 


79 


23.6% 


11 


3.3% 


335 


268.6 


255.0 


District 26A-C 




















Mecklenburg 


1,467 


58.5% 


888 


35.4% 


151 


6.0% 


2,506 


349.6 


309.0 


District 27A 




















Gaston 


456 


75.1% 


129 


21.3% 


22 


3.6% 


607 


265.5 


232.0 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


90 


57.7% 


50 


32.1% 


16 


10.3% 


156 


336.8 


281.5 


Lincoln 


60 


66.7% 


28 


31.1% 


2 


2.2% 


90 


295.4 


273.0 


District Totals 


150 


61.0% 


78 


31.7% 


18 


7.3% 


246 


321.7 


273.5 



14 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 







Ages 


of Disposed Cases (Months) 


% 


Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


Age (Days) 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


399 


74.7% 


116 


21.7% 


19 


3.6% 


534 


272.3 


226.0 


District 29 




















Henderson 


68 


44.7% 


56 


36.8% 


28 


18.4% 


152 


416.9 


410.5 


McDowell 


29 


64.4% 


9 


20.0% 


7 


15.6% 


45 


394.4 


281.0 


Polk 


11 


61.1% 


6 


33.3% 


1 


5.6% 


18 


290.3 


228.0 


Rutherford 


39 


54.9% 


27 


38.0% 


5 


7.0% 


71 


348.1 


329.0 


Transylvania 


16 


42.1% 


16 


42.1% 


6 


15.8% 


38 


456.6 


431.0 


District Totals 


163 


50.3% 


114 


35.2% 


47 


14.5% 


324 


396.3 


345.0 


District 30A 




















Cherokee 


19 


63.3% 


9 


30.0% 


2 


6.7% 


30 


289.2 


164.0 


Clay 


7 


63.6% 


3 


27.3% 


1 


9.1% 


11 


306.1 


217.0 


Graham 


9 


56.3% 


3 


18.8% 


4 


25.0% 


16 


481.3 


336.0 


Macon 


29 


60.4% 


10 


20.8% 


9 


18.8% 


48 


429.8 


270.5 


Swain 


6 


46.2% 


6 


46.2% 


1 


7.7% 


13 


404.4 


492.0 


District Totals 


70 


59.3% 


31 


26.3% 


17 


14.4% 


118 


386.7 


270.5 


District 30B 




















Haywood 


71 


60.7% 


39 


33.3% 


7 


6.0% 


117 


349.7 


285.0 


Jackson 


29 


65.9% 


13 


29.5% 


2 


4.5% 


44 


290.6 


242.5 


District Totals 


100 


62.1% 


52 


32.3% 


9 


5.6% 


161 


333.5 


271.0 


State Totals 


11,277 


62.9% 


5,222 


29.1% 


1,430 


8.0% 


17,929 


326.9 


271.0 



115 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN ESTATES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 

1980-81 - 1989-90 
ESTATE CASES 



Number 

of 

Cases 




50,000 



25,000 



80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-£ 



*-89 89-90 



SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASES 



Number 

of 

Cases 




50,000 



25,000 



80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 

Estate case filings decreased for the first time in many which include, among other things, foreclosures and 

years, although only by 0.3%. Estate dispositions in- judicial hospitalizations, grew by 2.9%, while special 

creased by 1.6%. Filings of special proceedings cases, proceedings dispositions fell by 4.9%. 



16 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 





July 


1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 










Estates 


Special 


Proceedings 




Filed 


Disposed 


Filed 


Disposed 


District 1 










Camden 


61 


73 


23 


22 


Chowan 


136 


152 


39 


31 


Currituck 


146 


130 


89 


63 


Dare 


190 


171 


196 


191 


Gates 


93 


69 


39 


16 


Pasquotank 


247 


239 


225 


74 


Perquimans 


71 


83 


19 


21 


District Totals 


944 


917 


630 


418 


District 2 










Beaufort 


411 


407 


223 


173 


Hyde 


80 


79 


35 


23 


Martin 


214 


164 


140 


95 


Tyrrell 


35 


38 


33 


17 


Washington 


105 


104 


59 


41 


District Totals 


845 


792 


490 


349 


District 3A 










Pitt 


619 


573 


560 


340 


District 3B 










Carteret 


515 


476 


315 


209 


Craven 


478 


438 


530 


582 


Pamlico 


89 


75 


35 


29 


District Totals 


1,082 


989 


880 


820 


District 4A 










Duplin 


386 


363 


238 


175 


Jones 


93 


75 


46 


19 


Sampson 


451 


420 


337 


282 


District Totals 


930 


858 


621 


476 


District 4B 










Onslow 


491 


467 


1,337 


1,142 


District 5 










New Hanover 


846 


810 


1,199 


1,213 


Pender 


231 


234 


163 


145 


District Totals 


1,077 


1,044 


1,362 


1,358 


District 6A 










Halifax 


520 


518 


374 


259 



117 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Estates Special Proceedings 





Filed 


Disposed 


Filed 


Disposed 


District 6B 










Bertie 


163 


129 


110 


31 


Hertford 


175 


221 


148 


139 


Northampton 


186 


160 


99 


81 


District Totals 


524 


510 


357 


251 


District 7A 










Nash 


567 


577 


393 


276 


District 7B-C 










Edgecombe 


487 


472 


293 


143 


Wilson 


482 


509 


339 


287 


District Totals 


969 


981 


632 


430 


District 8A 










Greene 


127 


126 


69 


41 


Lenoir 


550 


511 


311 


352 


District Totals 


677 


637 


380 


393 


District 8B 










Wayne 


730 


673 


904 


930 


District 9 










Franklin 


298 


233 


254 


162 


Granville 


344 


304 


391 


369 


Person 


285 


305 


191 


187 


Vance 


348 


284 


281 


203 


Warren 


200 


194 


114 


84 


District Totals 


1,475 


1,320 


1,231 


1,005 


District 10A-D 










Wake 


2,047 


1,731 


3,601 


3,335 


District 11 










Harnett 


456 


515 


465 


286 


Johnston 


590 


543 


618 


601 


Lee 


339 


334 


245 


152 


District Totals 


1,385 


1,392 


1,328 


1,039 


District 12A-C 










Cumberland 


1,055 


1,015 


2,364 


2,310 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Estates Special Proceedings 





Filed 


Disposed 


Filed 


Disposed 


District 13 










Bladen 


247 


258 


245 


95 


Brunswick 


441 


431 


460 


450 


Columbus 


440 


416 


311 


261 


District Totals 


1,128 


1,105 


1,016 


806 


District 14 A -B 










Durham 


1,171 


1,282 


2,089 


1,764 


District 15A 










Alamance 


785 


746 


783 


528 


District 15B 










Chatham 


304 


293 


184 


144 


Orange 


548 


518 


676 


641 


District Totals 


852 


811 


860 


785 


District 16A 










Hoke 


98 


81 


117 


89 


Scotland 


252 


242 


289 


247 


District Totals 


350 


323 


406 


336 


District 16B 










Robeson 


646 


677 


888 


839 


District 17A 










Caswell 


142 


152 


147 


144 


Rockingham 


719 


705 


462 


383 


District Totals 


861 


857 


609 


527 


District 17B 










Stokes 


224 


228 


128 


50 


Surry 


419 


392 


360 


184 


District Totals 


643 


620 


488 


234 


District 18A-E 










Guilford 


2,257 


2,354 


2,777 


1,542 


District 19A 










Cabarrus 


711 


722 


483 


293 



119 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Estates Special Proceedings 





Filed 


Disposed 


Filed 


Disposed 


District 19B 










Montgomery 


156 


146 


136 


32 


Randolph 


706 


659 


562 


505 


District Totals 


862 


805 


698 


537 


District 19C 










Rowan 


972 


885 


1,039 


962 


District 20A 










Anson 


133 


162 


125 


49 


Moore 


576 


575 


449 


375 


Richmond 


302 


229 


383 


168 


District Totals 


1,011 


966 


957 


592 


District 20B 










Stanly 


437 


469 


336 


296 


Union 


495 


468 


331 


238 


District Totals 


932 


937 


667 


534 


District 21A-D 










Forsyth 


1,986 


1,793 


2,273 


2,200 


District 22 










Alexander 


204 


164 


74 


60 


Davidson 


889 


844 


800 


773 


Davie 


186 


196 


203 


105 


Iredell 


789 


737 


443 


480 


District Totals 


2,068 


1,941 


1,520 


1,418 


District 23 










Alleghany 


117 


86 


56 


51 


Ashe 


221 


252 


157 


148 


Wilkes 


391 


343 


399 


426 


Yadkin 


286 


254 


103 


166 


District Totals 


1,015 


935 


715 


791 


District 24 










Avery 


121 


130 


122 


93 


Madison 


114 


122 


67 


82 


Mitchell 


136 


105 


46 


37 


Watauga 


199 


186 


213 


181 


Yancey 


171 


138 


68 


68 


District Totals 


741 


681 


516 


461 



120 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Estates Special Proceedings 





Filed 


Disposed 


Filed 


Disposed 


District 25A 










Burke 


508 


456 


533 


325 


Caldwell 


505 


520 


398 


258 


District Totals 


1,013 


976 


931 


583 


District 25B 










Catawba 


810 


728 


602 


256 


District 26 A -C 










Mecklenburg 


3,057 


3,019 


4,764 


3,474 


District 27A 










Gaston 


1,130 


1,281 


904 


908 


District 27B 










Cleveland 


645 


574 


502 


323 


Lincoln 


335 


359 


195 


191 


District Totals 


980 


933 


697 


514 


District 28 










Buncombe 


1,671 


1,849 


1,268 


1,209 


District 29 










Henderson 


737 


797 


459 


460 


McDowell 


278 


316 


302 


286 


Polk 


206 


214 


63 


49 


Rutherford 


497 


511 


289 


179 


Transylvania 


276 


221 


103 


76 


District Totals 


1,994 


2,059 


1,216 


1,050 


District 30A 










Cherokee 


203 


161 


142 


123 


Clay 


61 


69 


49 


39 


Graham 


35 


53 


28 


10 


Macon 


218 


181 


302 


288 


Swain 


100 


85 


103 


47 


District Totals 


617 


549 


624 


507 


District 30B 










Haywood 


410 


325 


329 


275 


Jackson 


222 


177 


179 


115 


District Totals 


632 


502 


508 


390 


State Totals 


46,832 


45,330 


47,742 


39,171 



121 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

1980-81 - 1989-90 




Number 

of 

Cases 



Filings 



Dispositions 



End Pending 



110,000 



55,000 



80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 



84-85 



85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 



89-90 



Criminal filings in the superior courts continued to grow 
in fiscal year 1989-90 (8.1% over the previous year), as 
did dispositions (5.5%). The difference in filing and 



disposition rates accounts for the 25.1% increase in the 
number of cases pending June 30, 1990, as compared to 
the beginning of the fiscal year. 



122 



FILINGS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS - BY TYPE OF CASE 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Superior court criminal case filings totalled 108,784 cases, comprising the following specific types of cases: 

FELONIES 

Murder 
Manslaughter 
First Degree Rape 
Other Sex Offenses 
Robbery 
Assault 

Burglary/ Breaking or Entering 
Larceny 

Arson & Burnings 
Forgery & Utterings 
Fraudulent Activity 
Controlled Substances 
Other* 
TOTAL 



Number Filed 


% of Total Filings 


677 


1.0% 


111 


0.2% 


1,632 


2.3% 


2,090 


3.0% 


2,625 


3.8% 


2,608 


3.7% 


13,311 


19.1% 


8,443 


12.1% 


505 


0.7% 


7,863 


11.3% 


5,606 


8.0% 


20,272 


29.0% 


4,067 


5.8% 


69,810 


100.0% 



MISDEMEANORS 

DWI Appeal 

Other Motor Vehicle Appeal 
Non-Motor Vehicle Appeal 
Misdemeanor Originating in Superior Court 
TOTAL 



6,473 
6,655 

19,759 
6,087 

38,974 



16.6% 
17.1% 
50.7% 
15.6% 
100.0% 



Felony controlled substances filings increased from 15,505 in fiscal year 1988-89 to 20,272 in 1989-90, an increase of 
30.7%. These drug filings now comprise 29.0% of the felony caseload in superior court. Felony filings as a whole 
increased from 62,752 last year to 69,810, an increase of 11.2%. 

* "Other" felony cases include a wide variety of offenses — such as kidnapping, trespassing, crimes against public 
morality, perjury, and obstructing justice — that do not fit squarely into any of the offenses listed above. 



123 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 








Begin 










End 


Begin 










Knd 




Pending 




Total 


< 


7c Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filed Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


7/1/89 


Filed Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 1 


























Camden 


8 


12 


20 


12 


60.0% 


8 


14 


78 


92 


68 


73.9% 


24 


Chowan 


^4 


351 


425 


129 


30.4% 


296 


53 


231 


284 


177 


62.3% 


107 


Currituck 


29 


64 


93 


66 


71.0% 


27 


41 


209 


250 


155 


62.0% 


95 


Dare 


9] 


571 


662 


385 


58.2% 


277 


129 


620 


749 


573 


76.5% 


176 


Gates 


16 


79 


95 


46 


48.4% 


49 


20 


105 


125 


102 


81.6% 


23 


Pasquotank 


107 


422 


529 


316 


59.7% 


213 


135 


758 


893 


631 


70.7% 


262 


Perquimans 


61 


35 


96 


56 


58.3% 


40 


90 


140 


230 


156 


67.8% 


74 


District Totals 


386 


1,534 


1,920 


1,010 


52.6% 


910 


482 


2,141 


2,623 


1,862 


71.0% 


761 


District 2 


























Beaufort 


209 


558 


767 


567 


73.9% 


200 


88 


399 


487 


405 


83.2% 


82 


Hyde 


17 


43 


60 


34 


56.7% 


26 


18 


24 


42 


30 


71.4% 


12 


Martin 


34 


340 


374 


290 


77.5% 


84 


24 


132 


156 


92 


59.0% 


64 


Tyrrell 


3 


65 


68 


33 


48.5% 


35 


13 


58 


71 


49 


69.0% 


22 


Washington 


52 


218 


270 


224 


83.0% 


46 


24 


77 


101 


78 


77.2% 


23 


District Totals 


315 


1,224 


1,539 


1,148 


74.6% 


391 


167 


690 


857 


654 


76.3% 


203 


District 3A 


























Pitt 


622 


1,477 


2,099 


1,225 


58.4% 


874 


410 


918 


1,328 


1,077 


81.1% 


251 


District 3B 


























Carteret 


200 


568 


768 


606 


78.9% 


162 


110 


437 


547 


460 


84.1% 


87 


Craven 


230 


990 


1,220 


943 


77.3% 


277 


115 


843 


958 


833 


87.0% 


125 


Pamlico 


28 


122 


150 


74 


49.3% 


76 


14 


21 


35 


30 


85.7% 


5 


District Totals 


458 


1,680 


2,138 


1,623 


75.9% 


515 


239 


1,301 


1,540 


1,323 


85.9% 


217 


District 4A 


























Duplin 


75 


602 


677 


597 


88.2% 


80 


14 


138 


152 


126 


82.9% 


26 


Jones 


16 


122 


138 


111 


80.4% 


27 


11 


13 


24 


22 


91.7% 


2 


Sampson 


117 


859 


976 


774 


79.3% 


202 


15 


177 


192 


175 


91.1% 


17 


District Totals 


208 


1,583 


1,791 


1,482 


82.7% 


309 


40 


328 


368 


323 


87.8% 


45 


District 4B 


























Onslow 


206 


1,301 


1,507 


1,255 


83.3% 


252 


58 


358 


416 


361 


86.8% 


55 


District 5 


























New Hanover 


554 


2,548 


3,102 


2,565 


82.7% 


537 


253 


1,152 


1,405 


1,000 


71.2% 


405 


Pender 


761 


393 


1,154 


1,007 


87.3% 


147 


36 


105 


141 


103 


73.0% 


38 


District Totals 


1,315 


2,941 


4,256 


3,572 


83.9% 


684 


289 


1,257 


1,546 


1,103 


71.3% 


443 


District 6A 


























Halifax 


175 


495 


670 


510 


76.1% 


160 


112 


226 


338 


258 


76.3% 


80 



124 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 









Felc 


inies 










Misdemeanors 








Begin 










End 


Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filed Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


7/1/89 


Filed Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 6B 


























Bertie 


32 


242 


274 


226 


82.5% 


48 


28 


82 


110 


75 


68.2% 


35 


Hertford 


51 


427 


478 


317 


66.3% 


161 


43 


117 


160 


108 


67.5% 


52 


Northampton 


147 


215 


362 


305 


84.3% 


57 


33 


66 


99 


80 


80.8% 


19 


District Totals 


230 


884 


1,114 


848 


76.1% 


266 


104 


265 


369 


263 


71.3% 


106 


District 7A 


























Nash 


194 


1,047 


1,241 


803 


64.7% 


438 


93 


540 


633 


373 


58.9% 


260 


District 7B-C 


























Edgecombe 


192 


1,086 


1,278 


633 


49.5% 


645 


176 


586 


762 


382 


50.1% 


380 


Wilson 


225 


839 


1,064 


759 


71.3% 


305 


97 


364 


461 


305 


66.2% 


156 


District Totals 


417 


1,925 


2,342 


1,392 


59.4% 


950 


273 


950 


1,223 


687 


56.2% 


536 


District 8A 


























Greene 


79 


72 


151 


112 


74.2% 


39 


25 


52 


77 


57 


74.0% 


20 


Lenoir 


92 


534 


626 


417 


66.6% 


209 


44 


356 


400 


268 


67.0% 


132 


District Totals 


171 


606 


777 


529 


68.1% 


248 


69 


408 


477 


325 


68.1% 


152 


District 8B 


























Wayne 


132 


733 


865 


558 


64.5% 


307 


235 


947 


1,182 


741 


62.7% 


441 


District 9 


























Franklin 


88 


343 


431 


339 


78.7% 


92 


103 


312 


415 


275 


66.3% 


140 


Granville 


340 


381 


721 


617 


85.6% 


104 


77 


249 


326 


231 


70.9% 


95 


Person 


151 


315 


466 


253 


54.3% 


213 


96 


271 


367 


221 


60.2% 


146 


Vance 


384 


878 


1,262 


996 


78.9% 


266 


234 


564 


798 


518 


64.9% 


280 


Warren 


62 


218 


280 


176 


62.9% 


104 


75 


164 


239 


131 


54.8% 


108 


District Totals 


1,025 


2,135 


3,160 


2,381 


75.3% 


779 


585 


1,560 


2,145 


1,376 


64.1% 


769 


District 10A-D 


























Wake 


1,197 


4,476 


5,673 


3,929 


69.3% 


1,744 


627 


2,785 


3,412 


2,808 


82.3% 


604 


District 11 


























Harnett 


143 


528 


671 


445 


66.3% 


226 


36 


221 


257 


165 


64.2% 


92 


Johnston 


75 


502 


577 


436 


75.6% 


141 


39 


391 


430 


379 


88.1% 


51 


Lee 


71 


478 


549 


454 


82.7% 


95 


38 


261 


299 


235 


78.6% 


64 


District Totals 


289 


1,508 


1,797 


1,335 


74.3% 


462 


113 


873 


986 


779 


79.0% 


207 


District 12A-C 


























Cumberland 


592 


1,861 


2,453 


1,765 


72.0% 


688 


87 


438 


525 


380 


72.4% 


145 



125 



District 13 
Bladen 

Brunswick 
Columbus 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/89 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/90 



54 
220 
201 



211 
617 
256 



265 
837 
457 



161 
648 
287 



60.8% 
77.4% 
62.8% 



104 
189 
170 



Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/89 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/90 

58 205 263 177 67.3% 86 

19 247 266 207 77.8% 59 

100 268 368 238 64.7% 130 



District Totals 475 1,084 1,559 1,096 



70.3% 



463 



177 



720 897 



622 69.3% 



275 



District 14A-B 

Durham 



980 2,633 3,613 1,565 43.3% 2,048 



191 



362 553 



315 



57.0% 



238 



District 15A 

Alamance 



376 1,918 2,294 



1,828 



79.7% 



466 



150 



755 905 



815 



90.1% 



90 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 



105 
276 



271 376 
738 1,014 



237 
806 



63.0% 
79.5% 



District Totals 381 1,009 1,390 1,043 75.0% 



139 

208 

347 



35 76 111 
41 107 148 



76 



183 259 



84 
111 



75.7% 
75.0% 



195 75.3% 



27 
37 

64 



District 16A 

Hoke 
Scotland 



43 
124 



219 262 
409 533 



185 
300 



70.6% 
56.3% 



77 
233 



31 
74 



67 
178 



98 

252 



75 
154 



76.5% 
61.1% 



23 
98 



District Totals 



167 



628 795 



485 61.0% 



310 



105 



245 350 



229 65.4% 



121 



District 16B 

Robeson 



884 2,002 2, 



1,709 59.2% 



1,177 



434 



779 1,213 



723 



59.6% 



490 



District 17A 

Caswell 

Rockingham 



58 
812 



116 174 
969 1,781 



150 
947 



District Totals 870 1,085 1,955 1,097 



86.2% 24 42 205 247 

53.2% 834 358 832 1,190 

56.1% 858 400 1,037 1,437 



196 79.4% 

751 63.1% 

947 65.9% 



51 
439 

490 



District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 



76 
177 



District Totals 253 



280 356 253 71.1% 103 84 294 378 268 70.9% 110 

621 798 707 88.6% 91 123 702 825 719 87.2% 106 

901 1,154 960 83.2% 194 207 996 1,203 987 82.0% 216 



District 18A-E 

Guilford 



1,708 4,607 6,315 4,536 71.8% 



1,779 



140 722 862 614 71.2% 



248 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 



299 



1,016 1,315 1,027 78.1% 



288 



235 827 1,062 721 67.9% 



341 



126 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 








Begin 










End 


Begin 










Knd 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




%> Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filed Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


7/1/89 


Filed Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 


65 


254 


319 


165 


51.7% 


154 


76 


250 


326 


200 


61.3% 


126 


Randolph 


544 


1,098 


1,642 


1,012 


61.6% 


630 


282 


798 


1,080 


832 


77.0% 


248 


District Totals 


609 


1,352 


1,961 


1,177 


60.0% 


784 


358 


1,048 


1,406 


1,032 


73.4% 


374 


District 19C 


























Rowan 


299 


1,045 


1,344 


1,010 


75.1% 


334 


148 


432 


580 


409 


70.5% 


171 


District 20A 


























Anson 


54 


202 


256 


204 


79.7% 


52 


63 


265 


328 


298 


90.9% 


30 


Moore 


195 


1,160 


1,355 


875 


64.6% 


480 


108 


529 


637 


454 


71.3% 


183 


Richmond 


102 


697 


799 


586 


73.3% 


213 


101 


622 


723 


551 


76.2% 


172 


District Totals 


351 


2,059 


2,410 


1,665 


69.1% 


745 


272 


1,416 


1,688 


1,303 


77.2% 


385 


District 20B 


























Stanly 


242 


375 


617 


470 


76.2% 


147 


181 


392 


573 


422 


73.6% 


151 


Union 


139 


782 


921 


703 


76.3% 


218 


145 


590 


735 


488 


664% 


247 


District Totals 


381 


1,157 


1,538 


1,173 


76.3% 


365 


326 


982 


1,308 


910 


69.6% 


398 


District 21A-D 


























Forsyth 


1,040 


2,912 


3,952 


2,781 


70.4% 


1,171 


666 


2,356 


3,022 


2,009 


66.5% 


1,013 


District 22 


























Alexander 


96 


89 


185 


144 


77.8% 


41 


72 


171 


243 


192 


79.0% 


51 


Davidson 


86 


470 


556 


344 


61.9% 


212 


98 


535 


633 


472 


74.6% 


161 


Davie 


68 


72 


140 


124 


88.6% 


16 


42 


140 


182 


146 


80.2% 


36 


Iredell 


306 


838 


1,144 


808 


70.6% 


336 


243 


663 


906 


733 


80.9% 


173 


District Totals 


556 


1,469 


2,025 


1,420 


70.1% 


605 


455 


1,509 


1,964 


1,543 


78.6% 


421 


District 23 


























Alleghany 


11 


60 


71 


30 


42.3% 


41 


25 


41 


66 


31 


47.0% 


35 


Ashe 


51 


28 


79 


56 


70.9% 


23 


78 


66 


144 


101 


70.1% 


43 


Wilkes 


105 


473 


578 


327 


56.6% 


251 


139 


340 


479 


333 


69.5% 


146 


Yadkin 


128 


124 


252 


220 


87.3% 


32 


62 


107 


169 


145 


85.8% 


24 


District Totals 


295 


685 


980 


633 


64.6% 


347 


304 


554 


858 


610 


71.1% 


248 


District 24 


























Avery 


49 


59 


108 


57 


52.8% 


51 


19 


36 


55 


35 


63.6% 


20 


Madison 


75 


89 


164 


122 


74.4% 


42 


13 


29 


42 


37 


88.1% 


5 


Mitchell 


40 


73 


113 


54 


47.8% 


59 


31 


18 


49 


27 


55.1% 


22 


Watauga 


140 


264 


404 


247 


61.1% 


157 


38 


143 


181 


110 


60.8% 


71 


Yancey 


28 


37 


65 


37 


56.9% 


28 


33 


42 


75 


42 


56.0% 


33 


District Totals 


332 


522 


854 


517 


60.5% 


337 


134 


268 


402 


251 


62.4% 


151 



127 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 









Felc 


nies 










Misdemeanors 








Begin 










End 


Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 


< 


7c Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 


% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filed Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


7/1/89 


Filed Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 25A 


























Burke 


212 


647 


859 


526 


61.2% 


333 


200 


775 


975 


662 


67.9% 


313 


Caldwell 


427 


680 


1,107 


715 


64.6% 


392 


287 


673 


960 


601 


62.6% 


359 


District Totals 


639 


1,327 


1,966 


1,241 


63.1% 


725 


487 


1,448 


1,935 


1,263 


65.3% 


672 


District 25B 


























Catawba 


574 


1,032 


1,606 


1,017 


63.3% 


589 


459 


862 


1,321 


988 


74.8% 


333 


District 26A-C 


























Mecklenburg 


1,048 


4,148 


5,196 


3,765 


72.5% 


1,431 


589 


2,017 


2,606 


1,678 


64.4% 


928 


District 27A 


























Gaston 


567 


1,986 


2,553 


1,774 


69.5% 


779 


357 


707 


1,064 


671 


63.1% 


393 


District 27B 


























Cleveland 


378 


889 


1,267 


872 


68.8% 


395 


154 


217 


371 


266 


71.7% 


105 


Lincoln 


191 


458 


649 


324 


49.9% 


325 


49 


152 


201 


112 


55.7% 


89 


District Totals 


569 


1,347 


1,916 


1,196 


62.4% 


720 


203 


369 


572 


378 


66.1% 


194 


District 28 


























Buncombe 


351 


1,443 


1,794 


1,020 


56.9% 


774 


135 


526 


661 


494 


74.7% 


167 


District 29 


























Henderson 


517 


456 


973 


686 


70.5% 


287 


173 


250 


423 


287 


67.8% 


136 


McDowell 


122 


506 


628 


313 


49.8% 


315 


170 


209 


379 


227 


59.9% 


152 


Polk 


64 


63 


127 


76 


59.8% 


51 


36 


75 


111 


70 


63.1% 


41 


Rutherford 


172 


489 


661 


272 


41.1% 


389 


181 


634 


815 


380 


46.6% 


435 


Transylvania 


188 


320 


508 


282 


55.5% 


226 


46 


95 


141 


64 


45.4% 


77 


District Totals 


1,063 


1,834 


2,897 


1,629 


56.2% 


1,268 


606 


1,263 


1,869 


1,028 


55.0% 


841 


District 30A 


























Cherokee 


184 


214 


398 


269 


67.6% 


129 


59 


77 


136 


76 


55.9% 


60 


Clay 


12 


16 


28 


19 


67.9% 


9 


8 


34 


42 


27 


64.3% 


15 


Graham 


4H 


65 


113 


74 


65.5% 


39 


3 


30 


33 


19 


57.6% 


14 


Macon 


55 


201 


256 


155 


60.5% 


101 


15 


57 


72 


41 


56.9% 


31 


Swain 


143 


75 


218 


179 


82.1% 


39 


11 


50 


61 


37 


60.7% 


24 


District Totals 


442 


571 


1,013 


696 


68.7% 


317 


96 


248 


344 


200 


58.1% 


144 


District 30B 


























Haywood 


111 


389 


500 


288 


57.6% 


212 


79 


289 


368 


243 


66.0% 


125 


Jackson 


177 


239 


416 


207 


49.8% 


209 


28 


69 


97 


67 


69.1% 


30 


District Totals 


288 


628 


916 


495 


54.0% 


421 


107 


358 


465 


310 


66.7% 


155 


State Totals 


23,729 


69,810 


93,539 


63,920 


68.3% 


29,619 


11,800 


38,974 


50,774 


35,938 


70.8% 


14,836 



128 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 









Fek 


»nies 










Misdemeanors 








Begin 










End 


Begin 










Knd 


Prosecutorial 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


District 


7/1/89 


Filed Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


7/1/89 


Filed Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


1 


386 


1,534 


1,920 


1,010 


52.6% 


910 


482 


2,141 


2,623 


1,862 


71.0% 


761 


2 


315 


1,224 


1,539 


1,148 


74.6% 


391 


167 


690 


857 


654 


76.3% 


203 


3A 


622 


1,477 


2,099 


1,225 


58.4% 


874 


410 


918 


1,328 


1,077 


81.1% 


251 


3B 


458 


1,680 


2,138 


1,623 


75.9% 


515 


239 


1,301 


1,540 


1,323 


85.9% 


217 


4 


414 


2,884 


3,298 


2,737 


83.0% 


561 


98 


686 


784 


684 


87.2% 


100 


5 


1,315 


2,941 


4,256 


3,572 


83.9% 


684 


289 


1,257 


1,546 


1,103 


71.3% 


443 


6A 


175 


495 


670 


510 


76.1% 


160 


112 


226 


338 


258 


76.3% 


80 


6B 


230 


884 


1,114 


848 


76.1% 


266 


104 


265 


369 


263 


71.3% 


106 


7 


611 


2,972 


3,583 


2,195 


61.3% 


1,388 


366 


1,490 


1,856 


1,060 


57.1% 


796 


8 


303 


1,339 


1,642 


1,087 


66.2% 


555 


304 


1,355 


1,659 


1,066 


64.3% 


593 


9 


1,025 


2,135 


3,160 


2,381 


75.3% 


779 


585 


1,560 


2,145 


1,376 


64.1% 


769 


10 


1,197 


4,476 


5,673 


3,929 


69.3% 


1,744 


627 


2,785 


3,412 


2,808 


82.3% 


604 


11 


289 


1,508 


1,797 


1,335 


74.3% 


462 


113 


873 


986 


779 


79.0% 


207 


12 


592 


1,861 


2,453 


1,765 


72.0% 


688 


87 


438 


525 


380 


72.4% 


145 


13 


475 


1,084 


1,559 


1,096 


70.3% 


463 


177 


720 


897 


622 


69.3% 


275 


14 


980 


2,633 


3,613 


1,565 


43.3% 


2,048 


191 


362 


553 


315 


57.0% 


238 


15A 


376 


1,918 


2,294 


1,828 


79.7% 


466 


150 


755 


905 


815 


90.1% 


90 


15B 


381 


1,009 


1,390 


1,043 


75.0% 


347 


76 


183 


259 


195 


75.3% 


64 


16A 


167 


628 


795 


485 


61.0% 


310 


105 


245 


350 


229 


65.4% 


121 


16B 


884 


2,002 


2,886 


1,709 


59.2% 


1,177 


434 


779 


1,213 


723 


59.6% 


490 


17A 


870 


1,085 


1,955 


1,097 


56.1% 


858 


400 


1,037 


1,437 


947 


65.9% 


490 


17B 


253 


901 


1,154 


960 


83.2% 


194 


207 


996 


1,203 


987 


82.0% 


216 


18 


1,708 


4,607 


6,315 


4,536 


71.8% 


1,779 


140 


722 


862 


614 


71.2% 


248 


19A 


598 


2,061 


2,659 


2,037 


76.6% 


622 


383 


1,259 


1,642 


1,130 


68.8% 


512 


19B 


609 


1,352 


1,961 


1,177 


60.0% 


784 


358 


1,048 


1,406 


1,032 


73.4% 


374 


20 


732 


3,216 


3,948 


2,838 


71.9% 


1,110 


598 


2,398 


2,996 


2,213 


73.9% 


783 


21 


1,040 


2,912 


3,952 


2,781 


70.4% 


1,171 


666 


2,356 


3,022 


2,009 


66.5% 


1,013 


22 


556 


1,469 


2,025 


1,420 


70.1% 


605 


455 


1,509 


1,964 


1,543 


78.6% 


421 


23 


295 


685 


980 


633 


64.6% 


347 


304 


554 


858 


610 


71.1% 


248 


24 


332 


522 


854 


517 


60.5% 


337 


134 


268 


402 


251 


62.4% 


151 


25 


1,213 


2,359 


3,572 


2,258 


63.2% 


1,314 


946 


2,310 


3,256 


2,251 


69.1% 


1,005 


26 


1,048 


4,148 


5,196 


3,765 


72.5% 


1,431 


589 


2,017 


2,606 


1,678 


64.4% 


928 


27A 


567 


1,986 


2,553 


1,774 


69.5% 


779 


357 


707 


1,064 


671 


63.1% 


393 


27B 


569 


1,347 


1,916 


1,196 


62.4% 


720 


203 


369 


572 


378 


66.1% 


194 


28 


351 


1,443 


1,794 


1,020 


56.9% 


774 


135 


526 


661 


494 


74.7% 


167 


29 


1,063 


1,834 


2,897 


1,629 


56.2% 


1,268 


606 


1,263 


1,869 


1,028 


55.0% 


841 


30 


730 


1,199 


1,929 


1,191 


61.7% 


738 


203 


606 


809 


510 


63.0% 


299 


State Totals 


23,729 


69,810 


93,539 


63,920 


68.3% 


29,619 


11,800 


38,974 


50,774 


35,938 


70.8% 


14,836 



This table is provided because prosecutorial districts (shown in the map in Part II) do not coincide with superior court districts. 



129 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Dismissal (18,098) 



Guiltv Plea to Lesser 
Offense (8,351) 




Other (2,538) 

Not Guilty Plea 

(Jury Trial) 

(2,169) 



Guilty Plea to Offense 
Charged (32,764) 



Guilty pleas continue to account for more than 60% of 
all superior court felony dispositions, with most of them 
being pleas to the offense charged. Dismissals here 
include voluntary dismissals with and without leave, 
speedy trial dismissals, and dismissals after deferred 
prosecution. "Other" dispositions, i.e., those which do 



not fall into one of the specific categories on the chart, 
include changes of venue, dismissals by the court, 
indictments returned not a true bill by grand juries, 
dispositions of writs of habeas corpus on fugitive 
warrants, and dispositions of probation violations from 
other counties. 



130 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 1 






















Camden 


7 


1 


3 


1 














12 


7 


Chowan 


13 


78 


3 


33 











2 


129 


110 


Currituck 


18 


17 


3 


18 


5 








5 


66 


39 


Dare 


128 


57 


7 


157 


21 








15 


385 


4 


Gates 


11 


15 





17 


1 








2 


46 


19 


Pasquotank 


128 


44 


8 


109 


23 





2 


2 


316 


155 


Perquimans 


24 


5 


1 


20 











6 


56 


43 


District Totals 


329 


217 


25 


355 


50 





2 


32 


1,010 


377 


% of Total 


32.6% 


21.5% 


2.5% 


35.1% 


5.0% 


0.0% 


0.2% 


3.2% 


100.0% 


37.3% 


District 2 






















Beaufort 


298 


58 


32 


104 


31 








44 


567 


386 


Hyde 


11 


12 


4 


1 











6 


34 


26 


Martin 


231 


7 


15 


28 











9 


290 


222 


Tyrrell 


9 


15 


3 


5 











1 


33 


18 


Washington 


122 


22 


11 


22 


5 








42 


224 


146 


District Totals 


671 


114 


65 


160 


36 








102 


1,148 


798 


% of Total 


58.4% 


9.9% 


5.7% 


13.9% 


3.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


8.9% 


100.0% 


69.5% 


District 3A 






















Pitt 


434 


314 


49 


371 


45 








12 


1,225 


838 


% of Total 


35.4% 


25.6% 


4.0% 


30.3% 


3.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.0% 


100.0% 


68.4% 


District 3B 






















Carteret 


340 


59 


18 


170 


17 








2 


606 


400 


Craven 


478 


61 


126 


259 


3 








16 


943 


577 


Pamlico 


23 


14 





29 


5 








3 


74 


56 


District Totals 


841 


134 


144 


458 


25 








21 


1,623 


1,033 


% of Total 


51.8% 


8.3% 


8.9% 


28.2% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.3% 


100.0% 


63.6% 


District 4A 






















Duplin 


369 


56 


11 


158 


1 








2 


597 


406 


Jones 


50 


17 


2 


31 


7 








4 


111 


99 


Sampson 


509 


103 


16 


121 


17 








8 


774 


534 


District Totals 


928 


176 


29 


310 


25 








14 


1,482 


1,039 


% of Total 


62.6% 


11.9% 


2.0% 


20.9% 


1.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


0.9% 


100.0% 


70.1% 


District 4B 






















Onslow 


560 


190 


38 


399 


48 








20 


1,255 


693 


% of Total 


44.6% 


15.1% 


3.0% 


31.8% 


3.8% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 


55.2% 


District 5 






















New Hanover 


1,650 


298 


35 


443 


130 








9 


2,565 


1,541 


Pender 


139 


39 


15 


135 


8 








671 


1,007 


189 


District Totals 


1,789 


337 


50 


578 


138 








680 


3,572 


1,730 


% of Total 


50.1% 


9.4% 


1.4% 


16.2% 


3.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


19.0% 


100.0% 


48.4% 



131 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 





Guiltv Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 6A 






















Halifax 


266 


38 


14 


184 


3 








5 


510 


428 


% of Total 


52.2% 


7.5% 


2.7% 


36.1% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.0% 


100.0% 


83.9% 


District 6B 






















Bertie 


166 


11 


5 


38 











6 


226 


187 


Hertford 


120 


41 


35 


115 








1 


5 


317 


157 


Northampton 


126 


28 


21 


127 


1 








2 


305 


215 


District Totals 


412 


80 


61 


280 


1 





1 


13 


848 


559 


% of Total 


48.6% 


9.4% 


7.2% 


33.0% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


0.1% 


1.5% 


100.0% 


65.9% 


District 7A 






















Nash 


371 


116 


3 


274 


9 








30 


803 


470 


% of Total 


46.2% 


14.4% 


0.4% 


34.1% 


1.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


3.7% 


100.0% 


58.5% 


District 7B-C 






















Edgecombe 


293 


55 


12 


262 


8 








3 


633 


253 


Wilson 


307 


69 


13 


362 











8 


759 


460 


District Totals 


600 


124 


25 


624 


8 








11 


1,392 


713 


% of Total 


43.1% 


8.9% 


1.8% 


44.8% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


0.8% 


100.0% 


51.2% 


District 8A 






















Greene 


51 


27 


4 


26 


1 








3 


112 


93 


Lenoir 


208 


84 


29 


69 


9 








18 


417 


286 


District Totals 


259 


111 


33 


95 


10 








21 


529 


379 


% of Total 


49.0% 


21.0% 


6.2% 


18.0% 


1.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


4.0% 


100.0% 


71.6% 


District 8B 






















Wayne 


290 


106 


19 


115 


19 








9 


558 


381 


% of Total 


52.0% 


19.0% 


3.4% 


20.6% 


3.4% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 


68.3% 


District 9 






















Franklin 


210 


31 


7 


69 


1 








21 


339 


284 


Granville 


346 


60 


10 


189 











12 


617 


405 


Person 


109 


63 


9 


67 











5 


253 


173 


Vance 


629 


80 


4 


250 


20 








13 


996 


601 


Warren 


78 


31 


2 


51 











14 


176 


121 


District Totals 


1,372 


265 


32 


626 


21 








65 


2,381 


1,584 


% of Total 


57.6% 


11.1% 


1.3% 


26.3% 


0.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.7% 


100.0% 


66.5% 


District 10A-D 






















Wake 


2,463 


276 


64 


777 


268 





2 


79 


3,929 


2,606 


% of Total 


62.7% 


7.0% 


1.6% 


19.8% 


6.8% 


0.0% 


0.1% 


2.0% 


100.0% 


66.3% 



132 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 11 






















Harnett 


298 


45 


13 


75 











14 


445 


336 


Johnston 


252 


82 


13 


63 


16 








10 


436 


324 


Lee 


264 


68 


24 


86 


1 








11 


454 


322 


District Totals 


814 


195 


50 


224 


17 








35 


1,335 


982 


% of Total 


61.0% 


14.6% 


3.7% 


16.8% 


1.3% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.6% 


100.0% 


73.6% 


District 12A-C 






















Cumberland 


1,070 


188 


30 


340 


78 








59 


1,765 


1,217 

7 


% of Total 


60.6% 


10.7% 


1.7% 


19.3% 


4.4% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


3.3% 


100.0% 


69.0% 


District 13 






















Bladen 


89 


13 


17 


36 


3 








3 


161 


101 


Brunswick 


350 


54 


21 


195 


16 








12 


648 


559 


Columbus 


109 


35 


32 


64 


32 








15 


287 


136 


District Totals 


548 


102 


70 


295 


51 








30 


1,096 


796 


% of Total 


50.0% 


9.3% 


6.4% 


26.9% 


4.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.7% 


100.0% 


72.6% 


District 14A-B 






















Durham 


947 


137 


66 


373 


16 








26 


1,565 


1,084 


% of Total 


60.5% 


8.8% 


4.2% 


23.8% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.7% 


100.0% 


69.3% 


District 15A 






















Alamance 


1,240 


230 


35 


291 


1 


1 





30 


1,828 


1,631 


% of Total 


67.8% 


12.6% 


1.9% 


15.9% 


0.1% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 


89.2% 


District 15B 






















Chatham 


136 


20 


6 


56 


9 








10 


237 


136 


Orange 


500 


63 


19 


175 


34 








15 


806 


562 


District Totals 


636 


83 


25 


231 


43 








25 


1,043 


698 


% of Total 


61.0% 


8.0% 


2.4% 


22.1% 


4.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.4% 


100.0% 


66.9% 


District 16A 






















Hoke 


140 


9 


11 


24 











1 


185 


140 


Scotland 


j on 


22 


5 


45 


6 








32 


300 


189 


District Totals 


330 


31 


16 


69 


6 








33 


485 


329 


% of Total 


68.0% 


6.4% 


3.3% 


14.2% 


1.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


6.8% 


100.0% 


67.8% 


District 16B 






















Robeson 


1,375 


75 


109 


66 


38 








46 


1,709 


510 


% of Total 


80.5% 


4.4% 


6.4% 


3.9% 


2.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.7% 


100.0% 


29.8% 



133 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Guilts 


Pleas 


Jury 
Trials 

2 

37 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 
Leave Leave Prosecution 

33 
188 28 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 





Other 

4 
17 


Total 1 
Dispositions 

150 
947 


Total 


District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 


As 
Charged 

76 

554 


Lesser 
Offense 

35 

123 


Negotiated 
Pleas 

101 
619 


District Totals 
% of Total 


630 
57.4% 


158 
14.4% 


39 
3.6% 


221 
20.1% 


28 
2.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


21 
1.9% 


1,097 
100.0% 


720 

65.6% 


District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 


192 
618 


21 
45 


9 

12 


15 
17 



11 










16 

4 


253 
707 


14 
422 


District Totals 
% of Total 


810 
84.4% 


66 
6.9% 


21 

2.2% 


32 
3.3% 


11 
1.1% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


20 
2.1% 


960 

100.0% 


436 

45.4% 


District 18A-E 

Guilford 
% of Total 


2,880 
63.5% 


536 
11.8% 


134 
3.0% 


600 
13.2% 


334 
7.4% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


52 
1.1% 


4,536 
100.0% 


3,328 
73.4% 


District 19A 

Cabarrus 
% of Total 


289 
28.1% 


153 
14.9% 


26 
2.5% 


521 
50.7% 


23 
2.2% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


15 

1.5% 


1,027 
100.0% 


387 
37.7% 


District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 


81 
608 


11 

84 


15 
29 


51 
223 



66 










7 
2 


165 
1,012 


89 
689 


District Totals 
% of Total 


689 
58.5% 


95 

8.1% 


44 
3.7% 


274 
23.3% 


66 
5.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


9 

0.8% 


1,177 
100.0% 


778 
66.1% 


District 19C 

Rowan 
% of Total 


351 
34.8% 


183 
18.1% 


48 
4.8% 


384 
38.0% 


21 
2.1% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


23 
2.3% 


1,010 
100.0% 


606 
60.0% 


District 20A 

Anson 
Moore 

Richmond 


51 
358 
361 


52 

108 

11 


6 
19 
12 


82 
377 
182 


4 














9 

13 
20 


204 
875 
586 


103 
477 
363 


District Totals 
% of Total 


770 
46.2% 


171 
10.3% 


37 
2.2% 


641 
38.5% 


4 
0.2% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


42 
2.5% 


1,665 
100.0% 


943 
56.6% 


District 20B 

Stanly 
Union 


147 
334 


49 
122 


10 
11 


236 
225 


23 
3 










5 
8 


470 
703 


402 
465 


District Totals 
% of Total 


481 
41.0% 


171 
14.6% 


21 
1.8% 


461 
39.3% 


26 
2.2% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


13 
1.1% 


1,173 
100.0% 


867 
73.9% 


District 21 A -D 

Forsyth 
% of Total 


1,297 
46.6% 


496 

17.8% 


74 
2.7% 


751 
27.0% 


73 
2.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


90 
3.2% 


2,781 
100.0% 


1,318 

47.4% 



134 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 22 






















Alexander 


85 


21 


3 


19 


5 








11 


144 


75 


Davidson 


189 


58 


30 


51 


2 








14 


344 


182 


Davie 


80 


19 


7 


17 











1 


124 


88 


Iredell 


526 


97 


23 


146 


5 








11 


808 


341 


District Totals 


880 


195 


63 


233 


12 








37 


1,420 


686 


% of Total 


62.0% 


13.7% 


4.4% 


16.4% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.6% 


100.0% 


48.3% 


District 23 






















Alleghany 


9 


4 


9 


7 











1 


30 


19 


Ashe 


18 


12 


5 


11 











10 


56 


40 


Wilkes 


216 


28 


19 


46 


3 








15 


327 


88 


Yadkin 


160 


13 


6 


23 


3 








15 


220 


159 


District Totals 


403 


57 


39 


87 


6 








41 


633 


306 


% of Total 


63.7% 


9.0% 


6.2% 


13.7% 


0.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


6.5% 


100.0% 


48.3% 


District 24 






















Avery 


41 


1 


1 


13 











1 


57 


9 


Madison 


35 


18 


4 


46 


12 








7 


122 


65 


Mitchell 


10 


10 


3 


24 





2 





5 


54 


30 


Watauga 


104 


17 


4 


120 











2 


247 


130 


Yancey 


17 


3 


1 


14 


1 








1 


37 


18 


District Totals 


207 


49 


13 


217 


13 


2 





16 


517 


252 


% of Total 


40.0% 


9.5% 


2.5% 


42.0% 


2.5% 


0.4% 


0.0% 


3.1% 


100.0% 


48.7% 


District 25A 






















Burke 


255 


61 


1 


186 


16 








7 


526 


156 


Caldwell 


326 


83 


17 


231 


38 








20 


715 


525 


District Totals 


581 


144 


18 


417 


54 








27 


1,241 


681 


% of Total 


46.8% 


11.6% 


1.5% 


33.6% 


4.4% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.2% 


100.0% 


54.9% 


District 25B 






















Catawba 


518 


28 


28 


357 


63 








23 


1,017 


426 


% of Total 


50.9% 


2.8% 


2.8% 


35.1% 


6.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.3% 


100.0% 


41.9% 


District 26A-C 






















Mecklenburg 


415 


1,618 


181 


728 


297 


1 





525 


3,765 


1,634 


% of Total 


11.0% 


43.0% 


4.8% 


19.3% 


7.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


13.9% 


100.0% 


43.4% 


District 27A 






















Gaston 


697 


84 


67 


770 


116 








40 


1,774 


758 


% of Total 


39.3% 


4.7% 


3.8% 


43.4% 


6.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.3% 


100.0% 


42.7% 



135 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Guiltv Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 27B 






















Cleveland 


318 


86 


62 


363 


30 


1 


3 


9 


872 


27 


Lincoln 


165 


9 


13 


125 


1 








11 


324 


142 


District Totals 


483 


95 


75 


488 


31 


1 


3 


20 


1,196 


169 


^ of Total 


40.4% 


7.9% 


6.3% 


40.8% 


2.6% 


0.1% 


0.3% 


1.7% 


100.0% 


14.1% 


District 28 






















Buncombe 


664 


47 


26 


209 


63 








11 


1,020 


699 


% of Total 


65.1% 


4.6% 


2.5% 


20.5% 


6.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 


68.5% 


District 29 






















Henderson 


390 


43 


14 


185 


45 








9 


686 


457 


McDowell 


89 


33 


20 


152 


1 





9 


9 


313 


127 


Polk 


32 


4 


9 


27 


2 








2 


76 


24 


Rutherford 


156 


20 


22 


68 


2 








4 


272 


90 


Transylvania 


137 


5 


27 


89 


12 








12 


282 


177 


District Totals 


804 


105 


92 


521 


62 





9 


36 


1,629 


875 


% of Total 


49.4% 


6.4% 


5.6% 


32.0% 


3.8% 


0.0% 


0.6% 


2.2% 


100.0% 


53.7% 


District 30A 






















Cherokee 


90 


63 


17 


86 


1 


1 





11 


269 


61 


Clay 


8 


2 





8 











1 


19 


9 


Graham 


13 


10 


6 


45 














74 


23 


Macon 


41 


14 


2 


59 


2 


1 





36 


155 


61 


Swain 


24 


85 


3 


62 











5 


179 


152 


District Totals 


176 


174 


28 


260 


3 


2 





53 


696 


306 


% of Total 


25.3% 


25.0% 


4.0% 


37.4% 


0.4% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


7.6% 


100.0% 


44.0% 


District 30B 






















Haywood 


95 


70 


30 


67 


3 








23 


288 


193 


Jackson 


99 


17 


13 


75 











3 


207 


185 


District Totals 


194 


87 


43 


142 


3 








26 


495 


378 


% of Total 


39.2% 


17.6% 


8.7% 


28.7% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


5.3% 


100.0% 


76.4% 


State Totals 


32,764 


8,351 


2,169 


15,809 


2,265 


7 


17 


2,538 


63,920 


37,428 


% of Total 


51.3% 


13.1% 


3.4% 


24.7% 


3.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


4.0% 


100.0% 


58.6% 



136 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 



Prosecutorial 


Guilty 
As 
Charged 


Pleas 
Lesser 
Offense 


Jury 
Trials 


DA Dismissal 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 


Other 


Total 
Dispositions 


Total 


District 


Without 
Leave 


With 
Leave 


After Deferred 
Prosecution 


Negotiated 
Pleas 


1 

% of Total 


329 
32.6% 


217 
21.5% 


25 
2.5% 


355 
35.1% 


50 
5.0% 



0.0% 


2 
0.2% 


32 

3.2% 


1,010 
100.0% 


377 
37.3% 


2 
% of Total 


671 
58.4% 


114 
9.9% 


65 
5.7% 


160 
13.9% 


36 
3.1% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


102 
8.9% 


1,148 
100.0% 


798 
69.5% 


3A 

% of Total 


434 
35.4% 


314 
25.6% 


49 
4.0% 


371 
30.3% 


45 
3.7% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


12 
1.0% 


1,225 
100.0% 


838 
68.4% 


3B 

% of Total 


841 
51.8% 


134 
8.3% 


144 
8.9% 


458 
28.2% 


25 
1.5% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


21 
1.3% 


1,623 
100.0% 


1,033 
63.6% 


4 

% of Total 


1,488 
54.4% 


366 

13.4% 


67 

2.4% 


709 
25.9% 


73 
2.7% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


34 

1.2% 


2,737 
100.0% 


1,732 
63.3% 


5 
% of Total 


1,789 
50.1% 


337 
9.4% 


50 

1.4% 


578 
16.2% 


138 
3.9% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


680 
19.0% 


3,572 
100.0% 


1,730 
48.4% 


6A 

% of Total 


266 

52.2% 


38 
7.5% 


14 
2.7% 


184 
36.1% 


3 
0.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


5 
1.0% 


510 
100.0% 


428 
83.9% 


6B 

% of Total 


412 
48.6% 


80 
9.4% 


61 
7.2% 


280 
33.0% 


1 
0.1% 



0.0% 


1 

0.1% 


13 
1.5% 


848 
100.0% 


559 
65.9% 


7 
% of Total 


971 

44.2% 


240 
10.9% 


28 
1.3% 


898 
40.9% 


17 
0.8% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


41 

1.9% 


2,195 
100.0% 


1,183 
53.9% 


8 

% of Total 


549 
50.5% 


217 
20.0% 


52 
4.8% 


210 
19.3% 


29 
2.7% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


30 
2.8% 


1,087 
100.0% 


760 
69.9% 


9 

% of Total 


1,372 
57.6% 


265 
11.1% 


32 
1.3% 


626 
26.3% 


21 
0.9% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


65 
2.7% 


2,381 
100.0% 


1,584 
66.5% 


10 

% of Total 


2,463 
62.7% 


276 
7.0% 


64 
1.6% 


777 
19.8% 


268 
6.8% 



0.0% 


2 
0.1% 


79 
2.0% 


3,929 
100.0% 


2,606 
66.3% 


11 

% of Total 


814 
61.0% 


195 
14.6% 


50 
3.7% 


224 
16.8% 


17 
1.3% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


35 
2.6% 


1,335 
100.0% 


982 
73.6% 


12 

% of Total 


1,070 
60.6% 


188 
10.7% 


30 
1.7% 


340 
19.3% 


78 
4.4% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


59 

3.3% 


1,765 
100.0% 


1,217 
69.0% 


13 

% of Total 


548 
50.0% 


102 
9.3% 


70 
6.4% 


295 
26.9% 


51 
4.7% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


30 
2.7% 


1,096 
100.0% 


796 
72.6% 


14 

% of Total 


947 
60.5% 


137 
8.8% 


66 
4.2% 


373 
23.8% 


16 
1.0% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


26 
1.7% 


1,565 
100.0% 


1,084 
69.3% 


15A 

% of Total 


1,240 
67.8% 


230 
12.6% 


35 
1.9% 


291 
15.9% 


1 
0.1% 


1 

0.1% 



0.0% 


30 
1.6% 


1,828 
100.0% 


1,631 
89.2% 


15B 

% of Total 


636 

61.0% 


83 
8.0% 


25 
2.4% 


231 
22.1% 


43 
4.1% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


25 
2.4% 


1,043 
100.0% 


698 
66.9% 


16A 

% of Total 


330 

68.0% 


31 
6.4% 


16 
3.3% 


69 
14.2% 


6 
1.2% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


33 
6.8% 


485 
100.0% 


329 

67.8% 


16B 

% of Total 


1,375 
80.5% 


75 
4.4% 


109 
6.4% 


66 
3.9% 


38 
2.2% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


46 
2.7% 


1,709 

100.0% 


510 
29.8% 



This table is provided because prosecutorial districts (shown in the map in Part II) do not coincide with superior court districts. 

137 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 



Prosecutorial 


Guiltv Pleas 
As Lesser 
Charged Offense 


Jury 
Trials 


DA Dismissal 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 


Other 


Total 
Dispositions 


Total 


District 


Without 
Leave 


With 
Leave 


After Deferred 
Prosecution 


Negotiated 
Pleas 


17A 

% of Total 


630 
57.4% 


158 
14.4% 


39 
3.6% 


221 
20.1% 


28 
2.6% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


21 
1.9% 


1,097 
100.0% 


720 
65.6% 


17B 

% of Total 


810 
84.4% 


6b 
6.9% 


21 
2.2% 


32 

3.3% 


11 
1.1% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


20 
2.1% 


960 
100.0% 


436 

45.4% 


18 

Tc of Total 


2,880 
63.5% 


536 

11.8% 


134 
3.0% 


600 
13.2% 


334 
7.4% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


52 
1.1% 


4,536 
100.0% 


3,328 
73.4% 


19A 

% of Total 


640 
31.4% 


336 
16.5% 


74 
3.6% 


905 
44.4% 


44 
2.2% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


38 
1.9% 


2,037 
100.0% 


993 

48.7% 


19B 

9c of Total 


689 
58.5% 


95 

8.1% 


44 
3.7% 


274 
23.3% 


66 

5.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


9 
0.8% 


1,177 
100.0% 


778 
66.1% 


20 
% of Total 


1,251 
44.1% 


342 
12.1% 


58 
2.0% 


1,102 

38.8% 


30 
1.1% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


55 
1.9% 


2,838 
100.0% 


1,810 
63.8% 


21 

% of Total 


1,297 
46.6% 


496 

17.8% 


74 
2.7% 


751 

27.0% 


73 
2.6% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


90 

3.2% 


2,781 
100.0% 


1,318 

47.4% 


22 

% of Total 


880 

62.0% 


195 
13.7% 


63 
4.4% 


233 
16.4% 


12 
0.8% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


37 
2.6% 


1,420 
100.0% 


686 

48.3% 


23 
% of Total 


403 
63.7% 


57 
9.0% 


39 
6.2% 


87 
13.7% 


6 
0.9% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


41 
6.5% 


633 

100.0% 


306 

48.3% 


24 
% of Total 


207 
40.0% 


49 
9.5% 


13 
2.5% 


217 
42.0% 


13 
2.5% 


2 
0.4% 



0.0% 


16 
3.1% 


517 
100.0% 


252 

48.7% 


25 
% of Total 


1,099 
48.7% 


172 
7.6% 


46 
2.0% 


774 
34.3% 


117 
5.2% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


50 

2.2% 


2,258 
100.0% 


1,107 
49.0% 


26 
% of Total 


415 
11.0% 


1,618 
43.0% 


181 
4.8% 


728 
19.3% 


297 
7.9% 


1 

0.0% 



0.0% 


525 
13.9% 


3,765 
100.0% 


1,634 

43.4% 


27A 
% of Total 


697 
39.3% 


84 
4.7% 


67 
3.8% 


770 
43.4% 


116 
6.5% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


40 

2.3% 


1,774 
100.0% 


758 

42.7% 


27B 

% of Total 


483 
40.4% 


95 

7.9% 


75 
6.3% 


488 
40.8% 


31 
2.6% 


1 

0.1% 


3 
0.3% 


20 
1.7% 


1,196 
100.0% 


169 

14.1% 


28 
% of Total 


664 
65.1% 


47 
4.6% 


26 
2.5% 


209 
20.5% 


63 
6.2% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


11 
1.1% 


1,020 
100.0% 


699 
68.5% 


29 
% of Total 


804 
49.4% 


105 
6.4% 


92 
5.6% 


521 
32.0% 


62 
3.8% 



0.0% 


9 
0.6% 


36 
2.2% 


1,629 
100.0% 


875 
53.7% 


30 
% of Total 


370 
31.1% 


261 
21.9% 


71 
6.0% 


402 
33.8% 


6 
0.5% 


2 
0.2% 




0.0% 


79 
6.6% 


1,191 
100.0% 


684 

57.4% 


State Totals 
% of Total 


32,764 
51.3% 


8,351 
13.1% 


2,169 

3.4% 


15,809 
24.7% 


2,265 
3.5% 


7 
0.0% 


17 
0.0% 


2,538 
4.0% 


63,920 
100.0% 


37,428 
58.6% 



This table is provided because prosecutorial districts (shown in the map in Part II) do not coincide with superior court districts. 



138 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Other (12,517) 



Dismissal (9,779) 



Guilty Plea to Lesser 
Offense (1,407) 




Not Guilty Plea 

(Jury Trial) 

(924) 



Guilty Plea to Offense 
Charged (11,311) 



Guilty pleas account for 35.4% of superior court mis- 
demeanor dispositions, the overwhelming majority of 
which are guilty pleas to the offense charged. The 
"Other" category here includes withdrawn appeals, cases 
remanded to district court for judgment, and other 



miscellaneous dispositions such as changes of venue, 
dismissals by the court, and probation violations from 
other counties. Dismissals include voluntary dismissals 
with and without leave, speedy trial dismissals, and 
dismissals after deferred prosecution. 



139 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Speedy 





Guiltv Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 




As 


Lesser 


Without 


With A 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


District 1 












Camden 


31 


9 


3 


9 


2 


Chow an 


51 


24 


2 


15 





Currituck 


56 


42 


8 


24 


9 


Dare 


130 


44 


8 


81 


29 


Gates 


42 


8 


7 


5 


1 


Pasquotank 


167 


9 


6 


88 


36 


Perquimans 


61 


10 


1 


L9 





District Totals 


538 


146 


35 


241 


77 


% of Total 


28.9% 


7.8% 


1.9% 


12.9% 


4.1% 


District 2 












Beaufort 


100 


11 


13 


61 


13 


Hyde 


6 





4 


4 





Martin 


31 


4 


3 


16 





Tyrrell 


21 


2 


4 


2 


2 


Washington 


14 


3 





12 


4 


District Totals 


172 


20 


24 


95 


19 


% of Total 


26.3% 


3.1% 


3.7% 


14.5% 


2.9% 


District 3A 












Pitt 


452 


38 


29 


148 


86 


% of Total 


42.0% 


3.5% 


2.7% 


13.7% 


8.0% 


District 3B 












Carteret 


167 


3 


20 


89 


20 


Craven 


274 


15 


10 


168 


16 


Pamlico 


4 


4 


7 


2 


2 


District Totals 


445 


22 


37 


259 


38 


% of Total 


33.6% 


1.7% 


2.8% 


19.6% 


2.9% 


District 4A 












Duplin 


53 


1 


8 


54 





Jones 


7 


4 


1 


4 


1 


Sampson 


100 


6 


8 


23 


8 


District Totals 


160 


11 


17 


81 


9 


% of Total 


49.5% 


3.4% 


5.3% 


25.1% 


2.8% 


District 4B 












Onslow 


117 


4 


9 


109 


14 


% of Total 


32.4% 


1.1% 


2.5% 


30.2% 


3.9% 


District 5 












New Hanover 


553 


23 


14 


203 


78 


Pender 


45 


5 


9 


26 


6 


District Totals 


598 


28 


23 


229 


84 


% of Total 


54.2% 


2.5% 


2.1% 


20.8% 


7.6% 



Total 
After Deferred Trial Total Negotiated 

Prosecution Dismissals Other Dispositions Pleas 









14 


68 


6 








85 


177 


28 








16 


155 


56 








281 


573 











39 


102 


17 








325 


631 


58 








65 


156 


45 








825 


1,862 


210 


0.0% 


0.0% 


44.3% 


100.0% 


11.39 








207 


405 


97 








16 


30 


5 








38 


92 


11 








18 


49 


10 








45 


78 


14 








324 


654 


137 


0.0% 


0.0% 


49.5% 


100.0% 


20.9? 








324 


1,077 


272 


0.0% 


0.0% 


30.1% 


100.0% 


25.3<3 








161 


460 


111 








350 


833 


162 








11 


30 


5 








522 


1,323 


278 


0.0% 


0.0% 


39.5% 


100.0% 


21.0' 








10 


126 


18 








5 


22 


11 








30 


175 


26 








45 


323 


55 


0.0% 


0.0% 


13.9% 


100.0% 


17.0' 








108 


361 


67 


0.0% 


0.0% 


29.9% 


100.0% 


18.6' 








129 


1,000 


362 








12 


103 


26 








141 


1,103 


388 


0.0% 


0.0% 


12.8% 


100.0% 


35.2< 



140 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Guiltv 


Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 6A 






















Halifax 


79 


14 


6 


73 


16 





1 


69 


258 


86 


% of Total 


30.6% 


5.4% 


2.3% 


28.3% 


6.2% 


0.0% 


0.4% 


26.7% 


100.0% 


33.3% 


District 6B 






















Bertie 


34 





5 


15 


4 








17 


75 


34 


Hertford 


54 





5 


30 











19 


108 


12 


Northampton 


19 


2 


4 


26 


7 








22 


80 


31 


District Totals 


107 


2 


14 


71 


11 








58 


263 


77 


% of Total 


40.7% 


0.8% 


5.3% 


27.0% 


4.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


22.1% 


100.0% 


29.3% 


District 7A 






















Nash 


133 


17 


7 


115 


27 








74 


373 


78 


% of Total 


35.7% 


4.6% 


1.9% 


30.8% 


7.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


19.8% 


100.0% 


20.9% 


District 7B-C 






















Edgecombe 


151 


4 


3 


142 


23 








59 


382 


48 


Wilson 


95 


7 


1 


121 


6 








75 


305 


123 


District Totals 


246 


11 


4 


263 


29 








134 


687 


171 


% of Total 


35.8% 


1.6% 


0.6% 


38.3% 


4.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


19.5% 


100.0% 


24.9% 


District 8A 






















Greene 


9 


13 





7 


4 








24 


57 


10 


Lenoir 


74 


19 


7 


44 


16 








108 


268 


49 


District Totals 


83 


32 


7 


51 


20 








132 


325 


59 


% of Total 


25.5% 


9.8% 


2.2% 


15.7% 


6.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


40.6% 


100.0% 


18.2% 


District 8B 






















Wayne 


231 


48 


27 


174 


30 








231 


741 


228 


% of Total 


31.2% 


6.5% 


3.6% 


23.5% 


4.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


31.2% 


100.0% 


30.8% 


District 9 






















Franklin 


150 


8 


5 


67 


1 








44 


275 


203 


Granville 


97 


12 


1 


64 











57 


231 


108 


Person 


82 


21 


1 


67 





1 





49 


221 


103 


Vance 


222 


24 


9 


113 


2 








148 


518 


156 


Warren 


51 


1 


3 


30 











46 


131 


47 


District Totals 


602 


66 


19 


341 


3 


1 





344 


1,376 


617 


% of Total 


43.8% 


4.8% 


1.4% 


24.8% 


0.2% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


25.0% 


100.0% 


44.8% 


District 10A-D 






















Wake 


487 


27 


36 


314 


1,025 








919 


2,808 


366 


% of Total 


17.3% 


1.0% 


1.3% 


11.2% 


36.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


32.7% 


100.0% 


13.0% 



141 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Guiltv Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 11 






















Harnett 


51 


27 


4 


34 











49 


165 


69 


Johnston 


158 


44 


7 


47 


10 








113 


379 


135 


Lee 


97 


2 


6 


51 


2 








77 


235 


97 


District Totals 


306 


73 


17 


132 


12 








239 


779 


301 


% of Total 


39.3% 


9.4% 


2.2% 


16.9% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


30.7% 


100.0% 


38.6% 


District 12A-C 






















Cumberland 


04 


2 


15 


62 


18 








189 


380 


83 


% of Total 


24.7% 


0.5% 


3.9% 


16.3% 


4.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


49.7% 


100.0% 


21.8% 


District 13 






















Bladen 


6? 


1 


7 


32 


5 








69 


177 


60 


Brunswick 


64 


8 


11 


39 


10 








75 


207 


93 


Columbus 


52 


4 


17 


28 


16 








121 


238 


47 


District Totals 


179 


13 


35 


99 


31 








265 


622 


200 


% of Total 


28.8% 


2.1% 


5.6% 


15.9% 


5.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


42.6% 


100.0% 


32.2% 


District 14A-B 






















Durham 


110 


11 


16 


108 


18 








52 


315 


120 


% of Total 


34.9% 


3.5% 


5.1% 


34.3% 


5.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


16.5% 


100.0% 


38.1% 


District 15A 






















Alamance 


494 


9 


25 


95 


9 








183 


815 


488 


% of Total 


60.6% 


1.1% 


3.1% 


11.7% 


1.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


22.5% 


100.0% 


59.9% 


District 15B 






















Chatham 


17 


6 


4 


13 


4 








40 


84 


5 


Orange 


14 


1 


7 


23 


5 








61 


111 


14 


District Totals 


31 


7 


11 


36 


9 








101 


195 


19 


% of Total 


15.9% 


3.6% 


5.6% 


18.5% 


4.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


51.8% 


100.0% 


9.7% 


District 16A 






















Hoke 


24 


2 





15 











34 


75 


25 


Scotland 


45 


3 


1 


12 


14 








79 


154 


38 


District Totals 


69 


5 


1 


27 


14 








113 


229 


63 


% of Total 


30.1% 


2.2% 


0.4% 


11.8% 


6.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


49.3% 


100.0% 


27.5% 


District 16B 






















Robeson 


375 


4 


26 


45 


18 





5 


250 


723 


121 


% of Total 


51.9% 


0.6% 


3.6% 


6.2% 


2.5% 


0.0% 


0.7% 


34.6% 


100.0% 


16.7% 



142 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 
Negotiated 




As 


Lesser 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 17A 






















Caswell 


73 


19 


5 


25 


4 








70 


196 


50 


Rockingham 


288 


39 


14 


123 


44 








243 


751 


209 


District Totals 


361 


58 


19 


148 


48 








313 


947 


259 


% of Total 


38.1% 


6.1% 


2.0% 


15.6% 


5.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


33.1% 


100.0% 


27.3% 


District 17B 






















Stokes 


153 


15 


13 


10 


10 








67 


268 


7 


Surry 


441 


17 


8 


18 


17 








218 


719 


97 


District Totals 


594 


32 


21 


28 


27 








285 


987 


104 


% of Total 


60.2% 


3.2% 


2.1% 


2.8% 


2.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


28.9% 


100.0% 


10.5% 


District 18A-E 






















Guilford 


292 


9 


20 


97 


37 








159 


614 


273 


% of Total 


47.6% 


1.5% 


3.3% 


15.8% 


6.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


25.9% 


100.0% 


44.5% 


District 19A 






















Cabarrus 


189 


9 


11 


229 


47 








236 


721 


77 


% of Total 


26.2% 


1.2% 


1.5% 


31.8% 


6.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


32.7% 


100.0% 


10.7% 


District 19B 






















Montgomery 


52 


6 


1 


66 











75 


200 


53 


Randolph 


342 


17 


14 


164 


71 








224 


832 


320 


District Totals 


394 


23 


15 


230 


71 








299 


1,032 


373 


% of Total 


38.2% 


2.2% 


1.5% 


22.3% 


6.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


29.0% 


100.0% 


36.1% 


District 19C 






















Rowan 


90 


2 


8 


108 


36 








165 


409 


71 


% of Total 


22.0% 


0.5% 


2.0% 


26.4% 


8.8% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


40.3% 


100.0% 


17.4% 


District 20A 






















Anson 


105 


31 


8 


49 


5 








100 


298 


107 


Moore 


127 


15 


7 


168 











137 


454 


151 


Richmond 


135 





8 


136 


6 








266 


551 


109 


District Totals 


367 


46 


23 


353 


11 








503 


1,303 


367 


% of Total 


28.2% 


3.5% 


1.8% 


27.1% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


38.6% 


100.0% 


28.2% 


District 20B 






















Stanly 


129 


9 


7 


121 


21 








135 


422 


203 


Union 


81 


35 


7 


182 


6 








177 


488 


103 


District Totals 


210 


44 


14 


303 


27 








312 


910 


306 


% of Total 


23.1% 


4.8% 


1.5% 


33.3% 


3.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


34.3% 


100.0% 


33.6% 


District 21A-D 






















Forsyth 


787 


77 


15 


400 


76 








654 


2,009 


613 


% of Total 


39.2% 


3.8% 


0.7% 


19.9% 


3.8% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


32.6% 


100.0% 


30.5% 



143 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Guiltv Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 22 






















Alexander 


36 


7 


3 


24 


1 








121 


192 


23 


Davidson 


"4 


11 


9 


63 


34 








281 


472 


49 


Davie 


22 


11 


8 


11 


13 








81 


146 


13 


Iredell 


119 


15 


9 


84 


21 








485 


733 


46 


District Totals 


251 


44 


29 


182 


69 








968 


1,543 


131 


% of Total 


16.3% 


2.9% 


1.9% 


11.8% 


4.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


62.7% 


100.0% 


8.5% 


District 23 






















Alleghany 


3 





3 


12 











13 


31 


4 


Ashe 


17 


3 


11 


22 


1 








47 


101 


17 


Wilkes 


40 


6 


10 


33 


22 








222 


333 


15 


Yadkin 


35 


2 


4 


14 


11 








79 


145 


29 


District Totals 


95 


11 


28 


81 


34 








361 


610 


65 


% of Total 


15.6% 


1.8% 


4.6% 


13.3% 


5.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


59.2% 


100.0% 


10.79? 


District 24 






















Avery 


20 





7 


4 











4 


35 





Madison 


9 


1 


2 


15 


2 








8 


37 


13 


Mitchell 


5 





2 


14 











6 


27 


9 


Watauga 


25 





9 


23 











53 


110 


13 


Yancey 


18 


1 


1 


11 


2 








9 


42 


9 


District Totals 


77 


2 


21 


67 


4 








80 


251 


44 


% of Total 


30.7% 


0.8% 


8.4% 


26.7% 


1.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


31.9% 


100.0% 


17.59? 


District 25A 






















Burke 


195 


27 


5 


122 


32 








281 


662 


65 


Caldwell 


108 


30 


3 


81 


57 








322 


601 


140 


District Totals 


303 


57 


8 


203 


89 








603 


1,263 


205 


% of Total 


24.0% 


4.5% 


0.6% 


16.1% 


7.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


47.7% 


100.0% 


16.29? 


District 25B 






















Catawba 


213 


1 


28 


186 


98 








462 


988 


159 


% of Total 


21.6% 


0.1% 


2.8% 


18.8% 


9.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


46.8% 


100.0% 


16.19? 


District 26A-C 






















Mecklenburg 


132 


305 


25 


633 


89 








494 


1,678 


307 


% of Total 


7.9% 


18.2% 


1.5% 


37.7% 


5.3% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


29.4% 


100.0% 


18.39? 


District 27A 






















Gaston 


166 


4 


65 


226 


75 








135 


671 


137 


% of Total 


24.7% 


0.6% 


9.7% 


33.7% 


11.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


20.1% 


100.0% 


20.49 



144 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 27B 






















Cleveland 


60 


11 


20 


67 


12 








96 


266 


6 


Lincoln 


21 





7 


23 


4 








57 


112 


12 


District Totals 


81 


11 


27 


90 


16 








153 


378 


18 


% of Total 


21.4% 


2.9% 


7.1% 


23.8% 


4.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


40.5% 


100.0% 


4.8% 


District 28 






















Buncombe 


152 


5 


23 


119 


13 








182 


494 


129 


% of Total 


30.8% 


1.0% 


4.7% 


24.1% 


2.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


36.8% 


100.0% 


26.1% 


District 29 






















Henderson 


67 


6 


12 


47 


47 








108 


287 


64 


McDowell 


63 


3 


10 


63 


8 








80 


227 


45 


Polk 


19 


3 





8 


5 








35 


70 


6 


Rutherford 


127 


13 


23 


62 


18 








137 


380 


42 


Transylvania 


18 


1 


1 


16 


7 








21 


64 


18 


District Totals 


294 


26 


46 


196 


85 








381 


1,028 


175 


% of Total 


28.6% 


2.5% 


4.5% 


19.1% 


8.3% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


37.1% 


100.0% 


17.0% 


District 30A 






















Cherokee 


36 


3 


5 


26 


3 








3 


76 


10 


Clay 


15 


1 


1 


6 











4 


27 


13 


Graham 


15 








3 











1 


19 





Macon 


10 


1 





14 











16 


41 


7 


Swain 


2 


3 


2 


14 











16 


37 


4 


District Totals 


78 


8 


8 


63 


3 








40 


200 


34 


% of Total 


39.0% 


4.0% 


4.0% 


31.5% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


20.0% 


100.0% 


17.0% 


District 30B 






















Haywood 


63 


21 


24 


62 


5 








68 


243 


108 


Jackson 


14 


2 


6 


21 


2 








22 


67 


32 


District Totals 


77 


23 


30 


83 


7 








90 


310 


140 


% of Total 


24.8% 


7.4% 


9.7% 


26.8% 


2.3% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


29.0% 


100.0% 


45.2% 


State Totals 


11,311 


1,407 


924 


7,193 


2,579 


1 


6 


12,517 


35,938 


8,471 


% of Total 


31.5% 


3.9% 


2.6% 


20.0% 


7.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


34.8% 


100.0% 


23.6% 



145 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 



Prosecutorial 


Guiltv Pleas 
As Lesser 
Charged Offense 


Jury 
Trials 


DA Dismissal 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 


Other 


Total 
Dispositions 


Total 


District 


Without 
Leave 


With 
Leave 


After Deferred 
Prosecution 


Negotiated 
Pleas 


1 
% of Total 


538 
28.9% 


146 
7.8% 


35 
1.9% 


241 
12.9% 


77 
4.1% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


825 
44.3% 


1,862 
100.0% 


210 
11.3% 


: 

% of Total 


172 
26.3% 


20 
3.1% 


24 
3.7% 


95 
14.5% 


19 
2.9% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


324 
49.5% 


654 
100.0% 


137 
20.9% 


3A 

% of Total 


452 
42.0% 


38 
3.5% 


29 
2.7% 


148 
13.7% 


86 
8.0% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


324 
30.1% 


1,077 
100.0% 


272 
25.3% 


3B 

% of Total 


445 
33.6% 


22 
1.7% 


37 
2.8% 


259 
19.6% 


38 
2.9% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


522 
39.5% 


1,323 
100.0% 


278 
21.0% 


4 

% of Total 


277 
40.5% 


15 
2.2% 


26 
3.8% 


190 

27.8% 


23 
3.4% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


153 

22.4% 


684 
100.0% 


122 
17.8% 


5 
% of Total 


598 
54.2% 


28 
2.5% 


23 
2.1% 


229 
20.8% 


84 
7.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


141 
12.8% 


1,103 
100.0% 


388 
35.2% 


6A 
% of Total 


79 
30.6% 


14 
5.4% 


6 

2.3% 


73 
28.3% 


16 
6.2% 



0.0% 


1 

0.4% 


69 
26.7% 


258 
100.0% 


86 

33.3% 


6B 

% of Total 


107 

40.7% 


2 
0.8% 


14 
5.3% 


71 
27.0% 


11 
4.2% 




0.0% 




0.0% 


58 
22.1% 


263 
100.0% 


77 
29.3% 


7 
% of Total 


379 
35.8% 


28 
2.6% 


11 
1.0% 


378 
35.7% 


56 
5.3% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


208 
19.6% 


1,060 
100.0% 


249 

23.5% 


8 
% of Total 


314 
29.5% 


80 
7.5% 


34 
3.2% 


225 
21.1% 


50 
4.7% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


363 

34.1% 


1,066 
100.0% 


287 
26.9% 


9 
% of Total 


602 
43.8% 


66 
4.8% 


19 
1.4% 


341 
24.8% 


3 
0.2% 


1 

0.1% 



0.0% 


344 
25.0% 


1,376 
100.0% 


617 
44.8% 


10 
% of Total 


487 
17.3% 


27 
1.0% 


36 
1.3% 


314 
11.2% 


1,025 
36.5% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


919 

32.7% 


2,808 
100.0% 


366 
13.0% 


11 

% of Total 


306 
39.3% 


73 
9.4% 


17 
2.2% 


132 
16.9% 


12 
1.5% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


239 
30.7% 


779 
100.0% 


301 
38.6% 


12 

% of Total 


94 
24.7% 


2 

0.5% 


15 
3.9% 


62 
16.3% 


18 
4.7% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


189 

49.7% 


380 
100.0% 


83 
21.8% 


13 

% of Total 


179 
28.8% 


13 
2.1% 


35 
5.6% 


99 
15.9% 


31 
5.0% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


265 
42.6% 


622 
100.0% 


200 

32.2% 


14 
% of Total 


110 
34.9% 


11 

3.5% 


16 
5.1% 


108 
34.3% 


18 
5.7% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


52 
16.5% 


315 
100.0% 


120 
38.1% 


15A 

% of Total 


494 
60.6% 


9 

1.1% 


25 
3.1% 


95 
11.7% 


9 
1.1% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


183 
22.5% 


815 
100.0% 


488 
59.9% 


15B 

% of Total 


31 
15.9% 


7 

3.6% 


11 
5.6% 


36 
18.5% 


9 

4.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


101 

51.8% 


195 
100.0% 


19 

9.7% 


16A 

% of Total 


69 
30.1% 


5 
2.2% 


1 

0.4% 


27 
11.8% 


14 
6.1% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


113 

49.3% 


229 
100.0% 


63 

27.5% 


16B 

% of Total 


375 
51.9% 


4 
0.6% 


26 
3.6% 


45 
6.2% 


18 

2.5% 




0.0% 


5 
0.7% 


250 

34.6% 


723 
100.0% 


121 
16.7% 



This table is provided because prosecutorial districts (shown in the map in Part II) do not coincide with superior court districts. 

146 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 



Prosecutorial 


Guilty 
As 
Charged 

361 
38.1% 


Pleas 
Lesser 
Offense 

58 
6.1% 


Jury 
Trials 

19 

2.0% 


DA Dismissal 


Speedy 
Trial 
Dismissals 


0.0% 


Other 

313 
33.1% 


Total 
Dispositions 

947 
100.0% 


Total 


District 

17A 

% of Total 


Without 
Leave 

148 

15.6% 


With 
Leave 

48 
5.1% 


After Deferred 
Prosecution 


0.0% 


Negotiated 
Pleas 

259 

27.3% 


17B 

% of Total 


594 
60.2% 


32 

3.2% 


21 

2.1% 


28 
2.8% 


27 
2.7% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


285 
28.9% 


987 
100.0% 


104 
10.5% 


18 

% of Total 


292 
47.6% 


9 

1.5% 


20 
3.3% 


97 
15.8% 


37 
6.0% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


159 
25.9% 


614 
100.0% 


273 
44.5% 


19A 

% of Total 


279 
24.7% 


11 
1.0% 


19 
1.7% 


337 
29.8% 


83 
7.3% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


401 
35.5% 


1,130 

100.0% 


148 
13.1% 


19B 

% of Total 


394 

38.2% 


23 
2.2% 


15 
1.5% 


230 
22.3% 


71 
6.9% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


299 
29.0% 


1,032 
100.0% 


373 
36.1% 


20 

% of Total 


577 
26.1% 


90 

4.1% 


37 
1.7% 


656 
29.6% 


38 
1.7% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


815 
36.8% 


2,213 
100.0% 


673 
30.4% 


21 

% of Total 


787 
39.2% 


77 
3.8% 


15 
0.7% 


400 

19.9% 


76 
3.8% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


654 
32.6% 


2,009 
100.0% 


613 
30.5% 


22 
% of Total 


251 
16.3% 


44 
2.9% 


29 
1.9% 


182 
11.8% 


69 

4.5% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


968 
62.7% 


1,543 

100.0% 


131 

8.5% 


23 

% of Total 


95 
15.6% 


11 

1.8% 


28 
4.6% 


81 
13.3% 


34 
5.6% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


361 

59.2% 


610 
100.0% 


65 
10.7% 


24 

% of Total 


77 
30.7% 


2 
0.8% 


21 
8.4% 


67 
26.7% 


4 
1.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


80 
31.9% 


251 
100.0% 


44 
17.5% 


25 
% of Total 


516 
22.9% 


58 
2.6% 


36 

1.6% 


389 
17.3% 


187 
8.3% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


1,065 
47.3% 


2,251 
100.0% 


364 
16.2% 


26 

% of Total 


132 
7.9% 


305 
18.2% 


25 
1.5% 


633 

37.7% 


89 
5.3% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


494 
29.4% 


1,678 
100.0% 


307 
18.3% 


27A 
% of Total 


166 

24.7% 


4 
0.6% 


65 
9.7% 


226 
33.7% 


75 
11.2% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


135 
20.1% 


671 
100.0% 


137 
20.4% 


27B 

% of Total 


81 
21.4% 


11 
2.9% 


27 
7.1% 


90 
23.8% 


16 
4.2% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


153 
40.5% 


378 
100.0% 


18 
4.8% 


28 

% of Total 


152 
30.8% 


5 
1.0% 


23 
4.7% 


119 

24.1% 


13 
2.6% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


182 
36.8% 


494 
100.0% 


129 
26.1% 


29 

% of Total 


294 
28.6% 


26 
2.5% 


46 
4.5% 


196 

19.1% 


85 
8.3% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


381 
37.1% 


1,028 
100.0% 


175 
17.0% 


30 

% of Total 


155 
30.4% 


31 
6.1% 


38 
7.5% 


146 
28.6% 


10 
2.0% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


130 
25.5% 


510 
100.0% 


174 
34.1% 


State Totals 
% of Total 


11,311 
31.5% 


1,407 
3.9% 


924 

2.6% 


7,193 

20.0% 


2,579 
7.2% 


1 

0.0% 


6 
0.0% 


12,517 
34.8% 


35,938 
100.0% 


8,471 
23.6% 



This table is provided because prosecutorial districts (shown in the map in Part II) do not coincide with superior court districts. 



147 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 











Apes of Pei 


iding Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 1 






















Camden 


Fel 


4 








3 


1 





8 


188.9 


136.0 




Mis 


15 


5 





4 








24 


97.1 


74.5 


Chowan 


Fel 


28 


14 


126 


106 


19 


3 


2% 


219.1 


173.0 




Mis 


40 


10 


12 


20 


20 


5 


107 


228.2 


151.0 


Currituck 


Fel 


13 


3 


8 


2 





1 


27 


137.0 


103.0 




Mis 


70 





11 


5 


7 


2 


95 


129.7 


75.0 


Dare 


Fel 


126 


66 


36 


47 


2 





277 


118.4 


102.0 




Mis 


91 


5 


39 


30 


11 





176 


127.4 


88.0 


Gates 


Fel 


22 


26 








1 





49 


82.0 


115.0 




Mis 


6 


l > 





8 








23 


138.9 


102.0 


Pasquotank 


Fel 


90 


9 


48 


50 


16 





213 


153.4 


136.0 




Mis 


144 


29 


33 


47 


9 





262 


116.5 


74.0 


Perquimans 


Fel 


5 


4 


4 


9 


15 


3 


40 


356.7 


242.0 




Mis 


16 


13 


22 


9 


11 


3 


74 


222.1 


163.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


288 


122 


222 


217 


54 


7 


910 


169.0 


150.0 






31.6% 


13.4% 


24.4% 


23.8% 


5.9% 


0.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


382 


71 


117 


123 


58 


10 


761 


146.7 


88.0 






50.2% 


9.3% 


15.4% 


16.2% 


7.6% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






District 2 






















Beaufort 


Fel 


128 


16 


21 


28 


7 





200 


93.1 


54.0 




Mis 


43 


7 


19 


12 


1 





82 


104.2 


80.5 


Hyde 


Fel 


10 





13 


3 








26 


125.0 


152.0 




Mis 


6 


1 


5 











12 


98.2 


99.0 


Martin 


Fel 


40 


4 


14 


25 


1 





84 


127.8 


96.0 




Mis 


21 


6 


20 


12 


5 





64 


162.1 


137.0 


Tyrrell 


Fel 


34 





1 











35 


38.5 


37.0 




Mis 


19 


3 














22 


34.4 


24.0 


Washington 


Fel 


29 


4 


4 


9 








46 


93.8 


60.0 




Mis 


20 








3 








23 


57.3 


25.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


241 


24 


53 


65 


8 





391 


97.9 


59.0 






61.6% 


6.1% 


13.6% 


16.6% 


2.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


109 


17 


44 


27 


6 





203 


109.2 


80.0 






53.7% 


8.4% 


21.7% 


13.3% 


3.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 3A 






















Pitt 


Fel 


383 


55 


65 


216 


151 


4 


874 


182.7 


117.0 






43.8% 


6.3% 


7.4% 


24.7% 


17.3% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


154 


21 


21 


29 


24 


2 


251 


125.8 


66.0 






61.4% 


8.4% 


8.4% 


11.6% 


9.6% 


0.8% 


100.0% 







148 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 











Ages of Pei 


iding Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 3B 






















Carteret 


Fel 


95 


9 


23 


26 


9 





162 


113.3 


47.0 




Mis 


64 


1 


6 


11 


4 


1 


87 


105.9 


47.0 


Craven 


Fel 


110 


27 


33 


60 


34 


13 


277 


208.3 


121.0 




Mis 


61 


9 


26 


25 


3 


1 


125 


124.8 


93.0 


Pamlico 


Fel 


51 





19 


1 


4 


1 


76 


121.5 


59.0 




Mis 


4 











1 





5 


185.2 


51.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


256 


36 


75 


87 


47 


14 


515 


165.6 


108.0 






49.7% 


7.0% 


14.6% 


16.9% 


9.1% 


2.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


129 


10 


32 


36 


8 


2 


217 


118.6 


68.0 






59.4% 


4.6% 


14.7% 


16.6% 


3.7% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






District 4A 






















Duplin 


Fel 


68 


4 


1 


6 


1 





80 


76.8 


50.0 




Mis 


23 





1 


2 








26 


82.5 


66.0 


Jones 


Fel 


7 


14 


4 


2 








27 


98.4 


106.0 




Mis 








1 


1 








2 


194.0 


194.0 


Sampson 


Fel 


163 


1 


30 


1 


7 





202 


56.9 


30.0 




Mis 


14 


1 





2 








17 


70.5 


54.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


238 


19 


35 


9 


8 





309 


65.7 


30.0 






77.0% 


6.1% 


11.3% 


2.9% 


2.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


37 


1 


2 


5 








45 


82.9 


66.0 






82.2% 


2.2% 


4.4% 


11.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 4B 






















Onslow 


Fel 


228 


2 


6 


2 


14 





252 


71.6 


46.0 






90.5% 


0.8% 


2.4% 


0.8% 


5.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


50 


1 


1 


3 








55 


47.5 


26.0 






90.9% 


1.8% 


1.8% 


5.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 5 






















New Hanover 


Fel 


245 


126 


41 


58 


51 


16 


537 


164.5 


95.0 




Mis 


159 


27 


95 


62 


52 


10 


405 


186.3 


134.0 


Pender 


Fel 


111 


7 


13 


4 


3 


9 


147 


129.8 


57.0 




Mis 


20 


2 


7 


4 


2 


3 


38 


193.3 


81.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


356 


133 


54 


62 


54 


25 


684 


157.0 


81.5 






52.0% 


19.4% 


7.9% 


9.1% 


7.9% 


3.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


179 


29 


102 


66 


54 


13 


443 


186.9 


134.0 






40.4% 


6.5% 


23.0% 


14.9% 


12.2% 


2.9% 


100.0% 






District 6A 






















Halifax 


Fel 


82 


9 


14 


29 


26 





160 


154.4 


75.0 






51.3% 


5.6% 


8.8% 


18.1% 


16.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


37 


4 


13 


21 


5 





80 


141.3 


109.5 






46.3% 


5.0% 


16.3% 


26.3% 


6.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







149 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 











Ages of Pei 


iding Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 6B 






















Bertie 


Fel 


32 


9 


5 


2 








48 


77.3 


64.0 




Mis 


9 


4 


8 


7 


5 


2 


35 


231.0 


145.0 


Hertford 


Fel 


72 


15 


42 


13 


16 


3 


161 


157.5 


115.0 




Mis 


18 





10 


16 


8 





52 


200.4 


158.0 


Northampton 


Fel 


35 


2 


3 


17 








57 


121.0 


38.0 




Mis 


9 


2 


1 


5 


2 





19 


184.1 


102.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


139 


26 


50 


32 


16 


3 


266 


135.2 


77.0 






52.3% 


9.8% 


18.8% 


12.0% 


6.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


36 


6 


19 


28 


15 


2 


106 


207.6 


145.0 






34.0% 


5.7% 


17.9% 


26.4% 


14.2% 


1.9% 


100.0% 






District 7A 






















Nash 


Fel 


307 


19 


46 


37 


29 





438 


103.6 


52.0 






70.1% 


4.3% 


10.5% 


8.4% 


6.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


152 


50 


15 


30 


13 





260 


108.6 


72.0 






58.5% 


19.2% 


5.8% 


11.5% 


5.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 7B-C 






















Edgecombe 


Fel 


195 


112 


67 


203 


57 


11 


645 


197.3 


144.0 




Mis 


110 


55 


29 


131 


52 


3 


380 


209.4 


171.0 


Wilson 


Fel 


127 


57 


36 


48 


24 


13 


305 


177.9 


96.0 




Mis 


63 


15 


21 


15 


26 


16 


156 


261.2 


119.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


322 


169 


103 


251 


81 


24 


950 


191.1 


116.0 






33.9% 


17.8% 


10.8% 


26.4% 


8.5% 


2.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


173 


70 


50 


146 


78 


19 


536 


224.5 


145.0 






32.3% 


13.1% 


9.3% 


27.2% 


14.6% 


3.5% 


100.0% 






District 8A 






















Greene 


Fel 


24 





6 


4 


5 





39 


136.3 


47.0 




Mis 


8 


3 


6 


3 








20 


116.6 


110.0 


Lenoir 


Fel 


112 


27 


27 


28 


15 





209 


124.9 


74.0 




Mis 


94 


12 


15 


9 


2 





132 


77.3 


50.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


136 


27 


33 


32 


20 





248 


126.7 


74.0 






54.8% 


10.9% 


13.3% 


12.9% 


8.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


102 


15 


21 


12 


2 





152 


82.5 


53.5 






67.1% 


9.9% 


13.8% 


7.9% 


1.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 8B 






















Wayne 


Fel 


91 


120 


47 


34 


14 


1 


307 


134.0 


95.0 






29.6% 


39.1% 


15.3% 


11.1% 


4.6% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


197 


68 


70 


67 


32 


7 


441 


153.8 


103.0 






44.7% 


15.4% 


15.9% 


15.2% 


7.3% 


1.6% 


100.0% 







150 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 











Ages of Pei 


iding Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 


District 9 

Franklin 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


Fel 


53 


2 


7 


25 


1 


4 


92 


152.3 


72.0 




Mis 


73 


3 


20 


22 


12 


10 


140 


225.7 


87.0 


Granville 


Fel 


44 


6 


8 


6 


36 


4 


104 


223.8 


121.0 




Mis 


38 


4 


12 


22 


12 


7 


95 


240.1 


130.0 


Person 


Fel 


140 


2 


18 


12 


35 


6 


213 


147.6 


47.0 




Mis 


88 


9 


7 


17 


20 


5 


146 


164.5 


47.0 


Vance 


Fel 


77 


66 


30 


55 


32 


6 


266 


182.1 


115.0 




Mis 


99 


36 


54 


48 


31 


12 


280 


214.6 


127.5 


Warren 


Fel 


31 


5 


39 


18 


9 


2 


104 


180.8 


134.0 




Mis 


42 


2 


15 


30 


7 


12 


108 


255.2 


142.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


345 


81 


102 


116 


113 


22 


779 


174.6 


110.0 






44.3% 


10.4% 


13.1% 


14.9% 


14.5% 


2.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


340 


54 


108 


139 


82 


46 


769 


216.0 


115.0 






44.2% 


7.0% 


14.0% 


18.1% 


10.7% 


6.0% 


100.0% 






District 10 A -D 






















Wake 


Fel 


959 


79 


156 


331 


160 


59 


1,744 


166.4 


66.0 






55.0% 


4.5% 


8.9% 


19.0% 


9.2% 


3.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


418 


44 


59 


69 


11 


3 


604 


88.1 


45.0 






69.2% 


7.3% 


9.8% 


11.4% 


1.8% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 11 






















Harnett 


Fel 


102 


20 


36 


33 


22 


13 


226 


203.1 


110.0 




Mis 


42 


5 


5 


23 


10 


7 


92 


238.2 


109.0 


Johnston 


Fel 


72 


10 


39 


16 


2 


2 


141 


121.7 


80.0 




Mis 


27 


2 


16 


6 








51 


100.5 


80.0 


Lee 


Fel 


53 


7 


15 


16 


3 


1 


95 


114.6 


80.0 




Mis 


31 


14 


3 


13 


3 





64 


116.8 


96.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


227 


37 


90 


65 


27 


16 


462 


160.0 


100.0 






49.1% 


8.0% 


19.5% 


14.1% 


5.8% 


3.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


100 


21 


24 


42 


13 


7 


207 


166.8 


96.0 






48.3% 


10.1% 


11.6% 


20.3% 


6.3% 


3.4% 


100.0% 






District 12A-C 






















Cumberland 


Fel 


359 


91 


89 


93 


49 


7 


688 


131.3 


71.0 






52.2% 


13.2% 


12.9% 


13.5% 


7.1% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


75 


6 


18 


23 


19 


4 


145 


173.4 


87.0 






51.7% 


4.1% 


12.4% 


15.9% 


13.1% 


2.8% 


100.0% 







151 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 











Apes of Per 


iding Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 13 






















Bladen 


Fel 


60 


9 


9 


14 


6 





104 


95.8 


47.0 




Mis 


38 


3 


21 


20 


4 





86 


131.9 


134.0 


Brunswick 


Fel 


71 


22 


31 


36 


18 


11 


189 


217.1 


122.0 




Mis 


38 


1 


13 


6 


1 





59 


94.8 


59.0 


Columbus 


Fel 


63 


10 


38 


30 


27 


2 


170 


194.0 


138.0 




Mis 


45 


11 


37 


31 


5 


1 


130 


148.0 


123.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


200 


41 


78 


80 


51 


13 


463 


181.3 


110.0 






43.2% 


8.9% 


16.8% 


17.3% 


11.0% 


2.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


121 


15 


71 


57 


10 


1 


275 


131.6 


123.0 






44.0% 


5.5% 


25.8% 


20.7% 


3.6% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 14A-B 






















Durham 


Fel 


527 


608 


161 


481 


185 


86 


2,048 


202.2 


95.0 






25.7% 


29.7% 


7.9% 


23.5% 


9.0% 


4.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


70 


34 


28 


47 


29 


30 


238 


320.0 


149.0 






29.4% 


14.3% 


11.8% 


19.7% 


12.2% 


12.6% 


100.0% 






District 15A 






















Alamance 


Fel 


380 


42 


22 


19 


3 





466 


61.3 


32.0 






81.5% 


9.0% 


4.7% 


4.1% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


81 


2 


2 


4 





1 


90 


65.9 


42.0 






90.0% 


2.2% 


2.2% 


4.4% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 






District 15B 






















Chatham 


Fel 


64 


34 


13 


20 


8 





139 


128.3 


93.0 




Mis 


13 


2 


5 


4 


3 





27 


143.0 


92.0 


Orange 


Fel 


100 


28 


32 


40 


6 


2 


208 


127.3 


92.0 




Mis 


22 


2 


7 


5 


1 





37 


101.8 


57.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


164 


62 


45 


60 


14 


2 


347 


127.7 


92.0 






47.3% 


17.9% 


13.0% 


17.3% 


4.0% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


35 


4 


12 


9 


4 





64 


119.2 


72.5 






54.7% 


6.3% 


18.8% 


14.1% 


6.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 16A 






















Hoke 


Fel 


29 


15 


12 


19 


1 


1 


77 


132.7 


95.0 




Mis 


12 


2 


4 


4 


1 





23 


114.7 


80.0 


Scotland 


Fel 


164 


10 


8 


34 


14 


3 


233 


121.7 


71.0 




Mis 


60 


1 


8 


16 


7 


6 


98 


172.8 


71.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


193 


25 


20 


53 


15 


4 


310 


124.5 


71.0 






62.3% 


8.1% 


6.5% 


17.1% 


4.8% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


72 


3 


12 


20 


8 


6 


121 


161.8 


74.0 






59.5% 


2.5% 


9.9% 


16.5% 


6.6% 


5.0% 


100.0% 






District 16B 






















Robeson 


Fel 


500 


230 


183 


115 


97 


52 


1,177 


171.1 


107.0 






42.5% 


19.5% 


15.5% 


9.8% 


8.2% 


4.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


190 


34 


65 


66 


78 


57 


490 


272.3 


144.0 






38.8% 


6.9% 


13.3% 


13.5% 


15.9% 


11.6% 


100.0% 







152 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 











Ages of Pei 


iding Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 17A 






















Caswell 


Fel 


11 


4 


4 


1 


4 





24 


127.7 


111.0 




Mis 


38 


2 


7 


4 








51 


72.9 


51.0 


Rockingham 


Fel 


268 


88 


104 


183 


190 


1 


834 


205.1 


138.5 




Mis 


202 


49 


108 


69 


11 





439 


118.9 


108.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


279 


92 


108 


184 


194 


1 


858 


202.9 


135.0 






32.5% 


10.7% 


12.6% 


21.4% 


22.6% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


240 


51 


115 


73 


11 





490 


114.1 


92.0 






49.0% 


10.4% 


23.5% 


14.9% 


2.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 17B 






















Stokes 


Fel 


50 


6 


24 


13 


10 





103 


136.5 


92.0 




Mis 


58 


16 


11 


15 


10 





110 


128.7 


81.0 


Surry 


Fel 


39 





15 


30 


4 


3 


91 


152.7 


148.0 




Mis 


91 


4 


9 


2 








106 


50.6 


42.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


89 


6 


39 


43 


14 


3 


194 


144.1 


122.0 






45.9% 


3.1% 


20.1% 


22.2% 


7.2% 


1.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


149 


20 


20 


17 


10 





216 


90.4 


51.0 






69.0% 


9.3% 


9.3% 


7.9% 


4.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 18A-E 






















Guilford 


Fel 


765 


165 


376 


227 


223 


23 


1,779 


166.0 


110.0 






43.0% 


9.3% 


21.1% 


12.8% 


12.5% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


149 


13 


30 


47 


5 


4 


248 


128.1 


71.5 






60.1% 


5.2% 


12.1% 


19.0% 


2.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






District 19A 






















Cabarrus 


Fel 


179 


33 


30 


39 


6 


1 


288 


98.6 


65.0 






62.2% 


11.5% 


10.4% 


13.5% 


2.1% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


155 


102 


23 


44 


8 


9 


341 


132.7 


99.0 






45.5% 


29.9% 


6.7% 


12.9% 


2.3% 


2.6% 


100.0% 






District 19B 






















Montgomery 


Fel 


96 


6 


27 


21 


4 





154 


107.3 


81.0 




Mis 


74 


11 


10 


18 


11 


2 


126 


150.3 


80.0 


Randolph 


Fel 


267 


77 


123 


94 


60 


9 


630 


158.1 


103.0 




Mis 


130 


14 


34 


46 


14 


10 


248 


161.4 


82.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


363 


83 


150 


115 


64 


9 


784 


148.1 


100.0 






46.3% 


10.6% 


19.1% 


14.7% 


8.2% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


204 


25 


44 


64 


25 


12 


374 


157.7 


82.0 






54.5% 


6.7% 


11.8% 


17.1% 


6.7% 


3.2% 


100.0% 






District 19C 






















Rowan 


Fel 


132 


28 


113 


47 


13 


1 


334 


131.9 


123.0 






39.5% 


8.4% 


33.8% 


14.1% 


3.9% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


93 


22 


19 


22 


14 


1 


171 


142.3 


79.0 






54.4% 


12.9% 


11.1% 


12.9% 


8.2% 


0.6% 


100.0% 







153 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 











Ages of Pei 


iding Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 20A 






















Anson 


Fel 


38 


1 


8 


5 








52 


77.1 


58.0 




Mis 


16 


1 


4 


4 


4 


1 


30 


165.6 


72.0 


Moore 


Fel 


293 


96 


40 


30 


14 


7 


480 


118.0 


89.0 




Mis 


98 


13 


22 


24 


21 


5 


183 


173.8 


89.0 


Richmond 


Fel 


163 


6 


9 


10 


3 


22 


213 


153.1 


44.0 




Mis 


99 


21 


12 


14 


20 


6 


172 


166.5 


66.5 


District Totals 


Fel 


494 


103 


57 


45 


17 


29 


745 


125.2 


85.0 






66.3% 


13.8% 


7.7% 


6.0% 


2.3% 


3.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


213 


35 


38 


42 


45 


12 


385 


169.9 


81.0 






55.3% 


9.1% 


9.9% 


10.9% 


11.7% 


3.1% 


100.0% 






District 20B 






















Stanly 


Fel 


95 


25 


12 


10 


1 


4 


147 


105.6 


68.0 




Mis 


85 


19 


22 


14 


11 





151 


114.5 


68.0 


Union 


Fel 


122 


29 


28 


19 


9 


11 


218 


184.3 


67.0 




Mis 


121 


37 


11 


33 


18 


27 


247 


287.0 


93.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


217 


54 


40 


29 


10 


15 


365 


152.6 


68.0 






59.5% 


14.8% 


11.0% 


7.9% 


2.7% 


4.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


206 


56 


33 


47 


29 


27 


398 


221.6 


84.5 






51.8% 


14.1% 


8.3% 


11.8% 


7.3% 


6.8% 


100.0% 






District 21A-D 






















Forsyth 


Fel 


652 


129 


237 


102 


49 


2 


1,171 


106.9 


74.0 






55.7% 


11.0% 


20.2% 


8.7% 


4.2% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


597 


77 


145 


94 


73 


27 


1,013 


128.9 


59.0 






58.9% 


7.6% 


14.3% 


9.3% 


7.2% 


2.7% 


100.0% 






District 22 






















Alexander 


Fel 


13 


2 


11 


8 


5 


2 


41 


210.8 


145.0 




Mis 


17 


6 


12 


12 


1 


3 


51 


176.7 


138.0 


Davidson 


Fel 


101 


20 


16 


62 


13 





212 


138.5 


95.0 




Mis 


82 


10 


12 


55 


2 





161 


121.7 


82.0 


Davie 


Fel 


3 


6 


7 











16 


121.6 


114.5 




Mis 


15 


1 


6 


7 


6 


1 


36 


193.9 


142.0 


Iredell 


Fel 


183 


22 


44 


74 


13 





336 


127.0 


87.0 




Mis 


89 


14 


36 


24 


10 





173 


120.8 


88.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


300 


50 


78 


144 


31 


2 


605 


136.5 


95.0 






49.6% 


8.3% 


12.9% 


23.8% 


5.1% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


203 


31 


66 


98 


19 


4 


421 


134.2 


94.0 






48.2% 


7.4% 


15.7% 


23.3% 


4.5% 


1.0% 


100.0% 







154 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 











Ages of Pei 


iding Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 23 






















Alleghany 


Fel 


19 


1 


16 


4 


1 





41 


122.5 


136.0 




Mis 


17 


3 


6 


3 


6 





35 


162.6 


109.0 


Ashe 


Fel 


14 


1 





4 


2 


2 


23 


219.0 


85.0 




Mis 


15 


4 


7 


3 


12 


2 


43 


269.2 


141.0 


Wilkes 


Fel 


191 


8 


16 


17 


15 


4 


251 


117.5 


57.0 




Mis 


67 


4 


29 


19 


16 


11 


146 


216.9 


122.0 


Yadkin 


Fel 


18 


2 


7 


4 


1 





32 


123.5 


73.0 




Mis 


15 


2 


5 


1 


1 





24 


101.3 


73.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


242 


12 


39 


29 


19 


6 


347 


125.4 


57.0 






69.7% 


3.5% 


11.2% 


8.4% 


5.5% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


114 


13 


47 


26 


35 


13 


248 


207.1 


109.0 






46.0% 


5.2% 


19.0% 


10.5% 


14.1% 


5.2% 


100.0% 






District 24 






















Avery 


Fel 


1 





12 


3 


28 


7 


51 


442.6 


512.0 




Mis 


9 





3 


2 


6 





20 


208.3 


142.0 


Madison 


Fel 


14 





6 


8 


11 


3 


42 


259.2 


248.0 




Mis 


4 


1 














5 


50.4 


38.0 


Mitchell 


Fel 


14 





11 


27 


5 


2 


59 


230.7 


221.0 




Mis 


5 


1 


4 


4 


6 


2 


22 


312.0 


228.5 


Watauga 


Fel 


64 


1 


58 


24 


10 





157 


144.7 


129.0 




Mis 


23 


3 


31 


9 


5 





71 


153.2 


156.0 


Yancey 


Fel 


5 





4 


10 


9 





28 


260.6 


240.5 




Mis 


14 





7 


9 


3 





33 


163.1 


164.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


98 


1 


91 


72 


63 


12 


337 


228.7 


145.0 






29.1% 


0.3% 


27.0% 


21.4% 


18.7% 


3.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


55 


5 


45 


24 


20 


2 


151 


182.4 


156.0 






36.4% 


3.3% 


29.8% 


15.9% 


13.2% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






District 25A 






















Burke 


Fel 


133 


6 


44 


85 


44 


21 


333 


219.1 


145.0 




Mis 


165 


26 


62 


45 


10 


5 


313 


129.2 


86.0 


Caldwell 


Fel 


93 


59 


71 


121 


38 


10 


392 


197.4 


158.0 




Mis 


173 


51 


45 


46 


35 


9 


359 


163.0 


95.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


226 


65 


115 


206 


82 


31 


725 


207.4 


155.0 






31.2% 


9.0% 


15.9% 


28.4% 


11.3% 


4.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


338 


77 


107 


91 


45 


14 


672 


147.2 


87.5 






50.3% 


11.5% 


15.9% 


13.5% 


6.7% 


2.1% 


100.0% 






District 25B 






















Catawba 


Fel 


222 


21 


140 


147 


46 


13 


589 


177.5 


123.0 






37.7% 


3.6% 


23.8% 


25.0% 


7.8% 


2.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


154 


77 


24 


42 


35 


1 


333 


151.0 


100.0 






46.2% 


23.1% 


7.2% 


12.6% 


10.5% 


0.3% 


100.0% 







155 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 











A>»es of Pt 


nding Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 26A-C 






















Mecklenburg 


Fel 


767 


134 


200 


184 


126 


20 


1,431 


146.7 


79.0 






53.6% 


9.4% 


14.0% 


12.9% 


8.8% 


1.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


480 


74 


136 


130 


99 


9 


928 


145.1 


86.0 






51.7% 


8.0% 


14.7% 


14.0% 


10.7% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 27A 






















Gaston 


Fel 


414 


48 


50 


219 


34 


14 


779 


158.2 


88.0 






53.1% 


6.2% 


6.4% 


28.1% 


4.4% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


133 


76 


56 


82 


40 


6 


393 


175.2 


116.0 






33.8% 


19.3% 


14.2% 


20.9% 


10.2% 


1.5% 


100.0% 






District 27B 






















Cleveland 


Fel 


162 


22 


57 


105 


46 


3 


395 


180.7 


123.0 




Mis 


32 


9 


26 


11 


25 


2 


105 


225.8 


163.0 


Lincoln 


Fel 


132 


25 


56 


62 


44 


6 


325 


178.5 


122.0 




Mis 


45 


8 


11 


11 


6 


8 


89 


200.1 


87.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


294 


47 


113 


167 


90 


9 


720 


179.7 


123.0 






40.8% 


6.5% 


15.7% 


23.2% 


12.5% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


77 


17 


37 


22 


31 


10 


194 


214.0 


129.0 






39.7% 


8.8% 


19.1% 


11.3% 


16.0% 


5.2% 


100.0% 






District 28 






















Buncombe 


Fel 


307 


130 


171 


147 


15 


4 


774 


126.3 


113.0 






39.7% 


16.8% 


22.1% 


19.0% 


1.9% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


99 


18 


35 


13 


2 





167 


88.6 


60.0 






59.3% 


10.8% 


21.0% 


7.8% 


1.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 29 






















Henderson 


Fel 


45 


19 


87 


117 


19 





287 


207.0 


172.0 




Mis 


47 


10 


17 


35 


27 





136 


202.0 


170.0 


McDowell 


Fel 


25 


20 


55 


204 


5 


6 


315 


196.9 


197.0 




Mis 


50 


9 


41 


30 


20 


2 


152 


196.6 


143.5 


Polk 


Fel 


2 


6 


15 


11 


9 


8 


51 


351.7 


262.0 




Mis 


10 


12 


11 


X 








41 


126.5 


102.0 


Rutherford 


Fel 


156 


34 


45 


89 


57 


8 


389 


205.5 


129.0 




Mis 


171 


72 


56 


96 


31 


9 


435 


167.7 


106.0 


Transylvania 


Fel 


65 


18 


14 


71 


32 


26 


226 


342.5 


237.0 




Mis 


25 


3 


19 


13 


9 


8 


77 


264.6 


138.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


293 


97 


216 


492 


122 


48 


1,268 


234.0 


194.0 






23.1% 


7.6% 


17.0% 


38.8% 


9.6% 


3.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


303 


106 


144 


182 


87 


19 


841 


185.3 


123.0 






36.0% 


12.6% 


17.1% 


21.6% 


10.3% 


2.3% 


100.0% 







156 






AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 











Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 30A 






















Cherokee 


Fel 


50 





13 


23 


41 


2 


129 


247.9 


243.0 




Mis 


22 


3 


5 


3 


26 


1 


60 


274.4 


216.5 


Clay 


Fel 


5 








4 








9 


144.6 


82.0 




Mis 


11 








4 








15 


88.7 


17.0 


Graham 


Fel 


2 


21 





10 


6 





39 


194.8 


95.0 




Mis 


6 





4 


2 





2 


14 


227.2 


138.0 


Macon 


Fel 


55 


2 


27 


13 


3 


1 


101 


111.3 


72.0 




Mis 


20 


1 


4 


5 


1 





31 


123.3 


80.0 


Swain 


Fel 





20 


7 


9 


3 





39 


173.0 


117.0 




Mis 


13 





8 


3 








24 


95.9 


81.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


112 


43 


47 


59 


53 


3 


317 


185.7 


127.0 






35.3% 


13.6% 


14.8% 


18.6% 


16.7% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


72 


4 


21 


17 


27 


3 


144 


188.2 


96.0 






50.0% 


2.8% 


14.6% 


11.8% 


18.8% 


2.1% 


100.0% 






District 30B 






















Haywood 


Fel 


73 


20 


57 


48 


13 


1 


212 


152.6 


136.0 




Mis 


50 


12 


17 


37 


8 


1 


125 


164.6 


124.0 


Jackson 


Fel 


78 


39 


5 


15 


34 


38 


209 


311.3 


102.0 




Mis 


7 


8 


3 


9 


3 





30 


169.1 


112.5 


District Totals 


Fel 


151 


59 


62 


63 


47 


39 


421 


231.4 


127.0 






35.9% 


14.0% 


14.7% 


15.0% 


11.2% 


9.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


57 


20 


20 


46 


11 


1 


155 


165.5 


123.0 






36.8% 


12.9% 


12.9% 


29.7% 


7.1% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


Fel 


13,517 


3,457 


4,221 


5,246 


2,554 


624 


29,619 


161.2 


96.0 






45.6% 


11.7% 


14.3% 


17.7% 


8.6% 


2.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


7,330 


1,499 


2,111 


2,292 


1,220 


384 


14,836 


160.0 


93.0 






49.4% 


10.1% 


14.2% 


15.4% 


8.2% 


2.6% 


100.0% 







157 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES PENDING 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 



Prosecutorial 






Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


1 


Fel 


288 


122 


222 


217 


54 


7 


910 


169.0 


150.0 




% of Total 


31.6% 


13.4% 


24.4% 


23.8% 


5.9% 


0.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


382 


71 


117 


123 


58 


10 


761 


146.7 


88.0 




% of Total 


50.2% 


9.3% 


15.4% 


16.2% 


7.6% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






2 


Fel 


241 


24 


53 


65 


8 





391 


97.9 


59.0 




% of Total 


61.6% 


6.1% 


13.6% 


16.6% 


2.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


109 


17 


44 


27 


6 





203 


109.2 


80.0 




% of Total 


53.7% 


8.4% 


21.7% 


13.3% 


3.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






3A 


Fel 


383 


55 


65 


216 


151 


4 


874 


182.7 


117.0 




% of Total 


43.8% 


6.3% 


7.4% 


24.7% 


17.3% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


154 


21 


21 


29 


24 


2 


251 


125.8 


66.0 




% of Total 


61.4% 


8.4% 


8.4% 


11.6% 


9.6% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






3B 


Fel 


256 


36 


75 


87 


47 


14 


515 


165.6 


108.0 




% of Total 


49.7% 


7.0% 


14.6% 


16.9% 


9.1% 


2.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


129 


10 


32 


36 


8 


2 


217 


118.6 


68.0 




% of Total 


59.4% 


4.6% 


14.7% 


16.6% 


3.7% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






4 


Fel 


466 


21 


41 


11 


22 





561 


68.4 


46.0 




% of Total 


83.1% 


3.7% 


7.3% 


2.0% 


3.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


87 


2 


3 


8 








100 


63.4 


46.0 




% of Total 


87.0% 


2.0% 


3.0% 


8.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






5 


Fel 


356 


133 


54 


62 


54 


25 


684 


157.0 


81.5 




% of Total 


52.0% 


19.4% 


7.9% 


9.1% 


7.9% 


3.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


179 


29 


102 


66 


54 


13 


443 


186.9 


134.0 




% of Total 


40.4% 


6.5% 


23.0% 


14.9% 


12.2% 


2.9% 


100.0% 






6A 


Fel 


82 


9 


14 


29 


26 





160 


154.4 


75.0 




% of Total 


51.3% 


5.6% 


8.8% 


18.1% 


16.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


37 


4 


13 


21 


5 





80 


141.3 


109.5 




% of Total 


46.3% 


5.0% 


16.3% 


26.3% 


6.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






6B 


Fel 


139 


26 


50 


32 


16 


3 


266 


135.2 


77.0 




% of Total 


52.3% 


9.8% 


18.8% 


12.0% 


6.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


36 


6 


19 


28 


15 


2 


106 


207.6 


145.0 




% of Total 


34.0% 


5.7% 


17.9% 


26.4% 


14.2% 


1.9% 


100.0% 






7 


Fel 


629 


188 


149 


288 


110 


24 


1,388 


163.5 


95.0 




% of Total 


45.3% 


13.5% 


10.7% 


20.7% 


7.9% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


325 


120 


65 


176 


91 


19 


796 


186.6 


110.0 




% of Total 


40.8% 


15.1% 


8.2% 


22.1% 


11.4% 


2.4% 


100.0% 






8 


Fel 


227 


147 


80 


66 


34 


1 


555 


130.7 


95.0 




% of Total 


40.9% 


26.5% 


14.4% 


11.9% 


6.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


299 


83 


91 


79 


34 


7 


593 


135.5 


88.0 




% of Total 


50.4% 


14.0% 


15.3% 


13.3% 


5.7% 


1.2% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts (shown in the map in Part II) do not coincide with superior court districts. 



158 






AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES PENDING 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 



rosecutoi 


ial 






Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


9 


Fel 


345 


81 


102 


116 


113 


22 


779 


174.6 


110.0 




% of Total 


44.3% 


10.4% 


13.1% 


14.9% 


14.5% 


2.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


340 


54 


108 


139 


82 


46 


769 


216.0 


115.0 




% of Total 


44.2% 


7.0% 


14.0% 


18.1% 


10.7% 


6.0% 


100.0% 






10 


Fel 


959 


79 


156 


331 


160 


59 


1,744 


166.4 


66.0 




% of Total 


55.0% 


4.5% 


8.9% 


19.0% 


9.2% 


3.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


418 


44 


59 


69 


11 


3 


604 


88.1 


45.0 




% of Total 


69.2% 


7.3% 


9.8% 


11.4% 


1.8% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






11 


Fel 


227 


37 


90 


65 


27 


16 


462 


160.0 


100.0 




% of Total 


49.1% 


8.0% 


19.5% 


14.1% 


5.8% 


3.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


100 


21 


24 


42 


13 


7 


207 


166.8 


96.0 




% of Total 


48.3% 


10.1% 


11.6% 


20.3% 


6.3% 


3.4% 


100.0% 






12 


Fel 


359 


91 


89 


93 


49 


7 


688 


131.3 


71.0 




% of Total 


52.2% 


13.2% 


12.9% 


13.5% 


7.1% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


75 


6 


18 


23 


19 


4 


145 


173.4 


87.0 




% of Total 


51.7% 


4.1% 


12.4% 


15.9% 


13.1% 


2.8% 


100.0% 






13 


Fel 


200 


41 


78 


80 


51 


13 


463 


181.3 


110.0 




% of Total 


43.2% 


8.9% 


16.8% 


17.3% 


11.0% 


2.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


121 


15 


71 


57 


10 


1 


275 


131.6 


123.0 




% of Total 


44.0% 


5.5% 


25.8% 


20.7% 


3.6% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






14 


Fel 


527 


608 


161 


481 


185 


86 


2,048 


202.2 


95.0 




% of Total 


25.7% 


29.7% 


7.9% 


23.5% 


9.0% 


4.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


70 


34 


28 


47 


29 


30 


238 


320.0 


149.0 




% of Total 


29.4% 


14.3% 


11.8% 


19.7% 


12.2% 


12.6% 


100.0% 






15A 


Fel 


380 


42 


22 


19 


3 





466 


61.3 


32.0 




% of Total 


81.5% 


9.0% 


4.7% 


4.1% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


81 


2 


2 


4 





1 


90 


65.9 


42.0 




% of Total 


90.0% 


2.2% 


2.2% 


4.4% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 






15B 


Fel 


164 


62 


45 


60 


14 


2 


347 


127.7 


92.0 




% of Total 


47.3% 


17.9% 


13.0% 


17.3% 


4.0% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


35 


4 


12 


9 


4 





64 


119.2 


72.5 




% of Total 


54.7% 


6.3% 


18.8% 


14.1% 


6.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






16A 


Fel 


193 


25 


20 


53 


15 


4 


310 


124.5 


71.0 




% of Total 


62.3% 


8.1% 


6.5% 


17.1% 


4.8% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


72 


3 


12 


20 


8 


6 


121 


161.8 


74.0 




% of Total 


59.5% 


2.5% 


9.9% 


16.5% 


6.6% 


5.0% 


100.0% 






16B 


Fel 


500 


230 


183 


115 


97 


52 


1,177 


171.1 


107.0 




% of Total 


42.5% 


19.5% 


15.5% 


9.8% 


8.2% 


4.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


190 


34 


65 


66 


78 


57 


490 


272.3 


144.0 




% of Total 


38.8% 


6.9% 


13.3% 


13.5% 


15.9% 


11.6% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts (shown in the map in Part II) do not coincide with superior court districts. 



159 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES PENDING 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 



Prosecutorial 






Ages of Pei 


iding Cases (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


17A 


Fel 


279 


92 


108 


184 


194 


1 


858 


202.9 


135.0 




% of Total 


32.5% 


10.7% 


12.6% 


21.4% 


22.6% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


240 


51 


115 


73 


11 





490 


114.1 


92.0 




% of Total 


49.0% 


10.4% 


23.5% 


14.9% 


2.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






17B 


Fel 


89 


6 


39 


43 


14 


3 


194 


144.1 


122.0 




% of Total 


45.9% 


3.1% 


20.1% 


22.2% 


7.2% 


1.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


149 


20 


20 


17 


10 





216 


90.4 


51.0 




% of Total 


69.0% 


9.3% 


9.3% 


7.9% 


4.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






IS 


Fel 


765 


165 


376 


227 


223 


23 


1,779 


166.0 


110.0 




% of Total 


43.0% 


9.3% 


21.1% 


12.8% 


12.5% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


149 


13 


30 


47 


5 


4 


248 


128.1 


71.5 




% of Total 


60.1% 


5.2% 


12.1% 


19.0% 


2.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






19A 


Fel 


311 


61 


143 


86 


19 


2 


622 


116.4 


90.0 




% of Total 


50.0% 


9.8% 


23.0% 


13.8% 


3.1% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


248 


124 


42 


66 


22 


10 


512 


135.9 


99.0 




% of Total 


48.4% 


24.2% 


8.2% 


12.9% 


4.3% 


2.0% 


100.0% 






19B 


Fel 


363 


83 


150 


115 


64 


9 


784 


148.1 


100.0 




% of Total 


46.3% 


10.6% 


19.1% 


14.7% 


8.2% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


204 


25 


44 


64 


25 


12 


374 


157.7 


82.0 




% of Total 


54.5% 


6.7% 


11.8% 


17.1% 


6.7% 


3.2% 


100.0% 






20 


Fel 


711 


157 


97 


74 


27 


44 


1,110 


134.2 


74.0 




% of Total 


64.1% 


14.1% 


8.7% 


6.7% 


2.4% 


4.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


419 


91 


71 


89 


74 


39 


783 


196.2 


81.0 




% of Total 


53.5% 


11.6% 


9.1% 


11.4% 


9.5% 


5.0% 


100.0% 






21 


Fel 


652 


129 


237 


102 


49 


2 


1,171 


106.9 


74.0 




% of Total 


55.7% 


11.0% 


20.2% 


8.7% 


4.2% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


597 


77 


145 


94 


73 


27 


1,013 


128.9 


59.0 




% of Total 


58.9% 


7.6% 


14.3% 


9.3% 


7.2% 


2.7% 


100.0% 






22 


Fel 


300 


50 


78 


144 


31 


2 


605 


136.5 


95.0 




% of Total 


49.6% 


8.3% 


12.9% 


23.8% 


5.1% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


203 


31 


66 


98 


19 


4 


421 


134.2 


94.0 




% of Total 


48.2% 


7.4% 


15.7% 


23.3% 


4.5% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






23 


Fel 


242 


12 


39 


29 


19 


6 


347 


125.4 


57.0 




% of Total 


69.7% 


3.5% 


11.2% 


8.4% 


5.5% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


114 


13 


47 


26 


35 


13 


248 


207.1 


109.0 




% of Total 


46.0% 


5.2% 


19.0% 


10.5% 


14.1% 


5.2% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts (shown in the map in Part II) do not coincide with superior court districts. 



160 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES PENDING 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 



Prosecutorial 






Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


24 


Fel 


98 


1 


91 


72 


63 


12 


337 


228.7 


145.0 




% of Total 


29.1% 


0.3% 


27.0% 


21.4% 


18.7% 


3.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


55 


5 


45 


24 


20 


2 


151 


182.4 


156.0 




% of Total 


36.4% 


3.3% 


29.8% 


15.9% 


13.2% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






25 


Fel 


448 


86 


255 


353 


128 


44 


1,314 


194.0 


129.0 




% of Total 


34.1% 


6.5% 


19.4% 


26.9% 


9.7% 


3.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


492 


154 


131 


133 


80 


15 


1,005 


148.5 


94.0 




% of Total 


49.0% 


15.3% 


13.0% 


13.2% 


8.0% 


1.5% 


100.0% 






26 


Fel 


767 


134 


200 


184 


126 


20 


1,431 


146.7 


79.0 




% of Total 


53.6% 


9.4% 


14.0% 


12.9% 


8.8% 


1.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


480 


74 


136 


130 


99 


9 


928 


145.1 


86.0 




% of Total 


51.7% 


8.0% 


14.7% 


14.0% 


10.7% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






27A 


Fel 


414 


48 


50 


219 


34 


14 


779 


158.2 


88.0 




% of Total 


53.1% 


6.2% 


6.4% 


28.1% 


4.4% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


133 


76 


56 


82 


40 


6 


393 


175.2 


116.0 




% of Total 


33.8% 


19.3% 


14.2% 


20.9% 


10.2% 


1.5% 


100.0% 






27B 


Fel 


294 


47 


113 


167 


90 


9 


720 


179.7 


123.0 




% of Total 


40.8% 


6.5% 


15.7% 


23.2% 


12.5% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


77 


17 


37 


22 


31 


10 


194 


214.0 


129.0 




% of Total 


39.7% 


8.8% 


19.1% 


11.3% 


16.0% 


5.2% 


100.0% 






28 


Fel 


307 


130 


171 


147 


15 


4 


774 


126.3 


113.0 




% of Total 


39.7% 


16.8% 


22.1% 


19.0% 


1.9% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


99 


18 


35 


13 


2 





167 


88.6 


60.0 




% of Total 


59.3% 


10.8% 


21.0% 


7.8% 


1.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






29 


Fel 


293 


97 


216 


492 


122 


48 


1,268 


234.0 


194.0 




% of Total 


23.1% 


7.6% 


17.0% 


38.8% 


9.6% 


3.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


303 


106 


144 


182 


87 


19 


841 


185.3 


123.0 




% of Total 


36.0% 


12.6% 


17.1% 


21.6% 


10.3% 


2.3% 


100.0% 






30 


Fel 


263 


102 


109 


122 


100 


42 


738 


211.8 


127.0 




% of Total 


35.6% 


13.8% 


14.8% 


16.5% 


13.6% 


5.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


129 


24 


41 


63 


38 


4 


299 


176.4 


115.0 




% of Total 


43.1% 


8.0% 


13.7% 


21.1% 


12.7% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






State Totals Fel 


13,517 


3,457 


4,221 


5,246 


2,554 


624 


29,619 


161.2 


96.0 




% of Total 


45.6% 


11.7% 


14.3% 


17.7% 


8.6% 


2.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


7,330 


1,499 


2,111 


2,292 


1,220 


384 


14,836 


160.0 


93.0 




% of Total 


49.4% 


10.1% 


14.2% 


15.4% 


8.2% 


2.6% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts (shown in the map in Part II) do not coincide with superior court districts. 



161 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











Ages of Disf 


>osed Case* 


- (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 1 






















Camden 


Fel 


4 


2 





5 


1 





12 


182.3 


152.5 




Mis 


39 


6 


12 


8 


2 


1 


68 


111.4 


63.0 


Chowan 


Fel 


72 


10 


37 


8 


1 


1 


129 


102.3 


65.0 




Mis 


131 


15 


19 


6 


5 


1 


177 


78.3 


48.0 


Currituck 


Fel 


26 


7 


9 


11 


7 


6 


66 


236.5 


127.0 




Mis 


88 


25 


21 


19 


2 





155 


105.6 


76.0 


Dare 


Fel 


220 


50 


39 


52 


19 


5 


385 


127.3 


84.0 




Mis 


359 


62 


79 


61 


11 


1 


573 


92.7 


63.0 


Gates 


Fel 


14 


14 


12 


6 








46 


112.7 


105.0 




Mis 


47 


24 


15 


16 








102 


103.7 


98.0 


Pasquotank 


Fel 


118 


37 


59 


77 


25 





316 


159.0 


125.0 




Mis 


389 


75 


92 


65 


10 





631 


86.3 


62.0 


Perquimans 


Fel 


22 


7 


10 


12 


4 


1 


56 


157.0 


112.0 




Mis 


88 


17 


17 


29 


4 


1 


156 


112.7 


70.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


476 


127 


166 


171 


57 


13 


1,010 


142.8 


97.0 






47.1% 


12.6% 


16.4% 


16.9% 


5.6% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,141 


224 


255 


204 


34 


4 


1,862 


93.2 


68.0 






61.3% 


12.0% 


13.7% 


11.0% 


1.8% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 2 






















Beaufort 


Fel 


229 


87 


120 


106 


23 


2 


567 


139.3 


114.0 




Mis 


214 


90 


55 


42 


4 





405 


95.6 


85.0 


Hyde 


Fel 


14 


3 


7 


10 








34 


117.0 


115.5 




Mis 


11 


2 


4 


13 








30 


155.2 


157.0 


Martin 


Fel 


244 


22 


15 


9 








290 


55.3 


50.5 




Mis 


69 


6 


9 


6 


2 





92 


83.3 


71.5 


Tyrrell 


Fel 


24 


5 


2 


2 








33 


63.2 


41.0 




Mis 


30 


9 


3 


7 








49 


87.8 


74.0 


Washington 


Fel 


106 


21 


39 


44 


14 





224 


134.0 


91.0 




Mis 


42 


6 


12 


15 


3 





78 


124.8 


81.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


617 


138 


183 


171 


37 


2 


1,148 


114.2 


82.5 






53.7% 


12.0% 


15.9% 


14.9% 


3.2% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


366 


113 


83 


83 


9 





654 


99.5 


83.0 






56.0% 


17.3% 


12.7% 


12.7% 


1.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 3A 






















Pitt 


Fel 


510 


221 


165 


284 


45 





1,225 


134.5 


101.0 






41.6% 


18.0% 


13.5% 


23.2% 


3.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


643 


85 


115 


174 


58 


2 


1,077 


114.0 


62.0 






59.7% 


7.9% 


10.7% 


16.2% 


5.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 







162 






AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 3B 






















Carteret 


Fel 


284 


123 


97 


80 


21 


1 


606 


120.0 


94.0 




Mis 


371 


35 


31 


19 


4 





460 


62.1 


49.0 


Craven 


Fel 


507 


84 


247 


90 


14 


1 


943 


101.7 


80.0 




Mis 


624 


80 


71 


52 


6 





833 


65.7 


45.0 


Pamlico 


Fel 


21 


15 


21 


12 


5 





74 


154.1 


133.0 




Mis 


16 


2 





9 


3 





30 


141.9 


85.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


812 


222 


365 


182 


40 


2 


1,623 


110.9 


90.0 






50.0% 


13.7% 


22.5% 


11.2% 


2.5% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,011 


117 


102 


80 


13 





1,323 


66.2 


47.0 






76.4% 


8.8% 


7.7% 


6.0% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 4A 






















Duplin 


Fel 


357 


72 


157 


11 








597 


69.0 


60.0 




Mis 


111 


4 


4 


4 


3 





126 


50.8 


26.0 


Jones 


Fel 


81 


10 


14 


6 








111 


55.7 


31.0 




Mis 


14 


1 


5 


1 


1 





22 


90.4 


62.5 


Sampson 


Fel 


563 


106 


75 


28 


2 





774 


57.5 


26.5 




Mis 


148 


8 


18 


1 








175 


51.7 


34.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


1,001 


188 


246 


45 


2 





1,482 


62.0 


38.5 






67.5% 


12.7% 


16.6% 


3.0% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


273 


13 


27 


6 


4 





323 


54.0 


34.0 






84.5% 


4.0% 


8.4% 


1.9% 


1.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 4B 






















Onslow 


Fel 


1,013 


107 


85 


43 


7 





1,255 


61.2 


49.0 






80.7% 


8.5% 


6.8% 


3.4% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


291 


30 


22 


17 


1 





361 


66.2 


41.0 






80.6% 


8.3% 


6.1% 


4.7% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 5 






















New Hanover 


Fel 


1,763 


222 


205 


306 


53 


16 


2,565 


97.5 


62.0 




Mis 


736 


111 


51 


72 


19 


11 


1,000 


86.9 


57.0 


Pender 


Fel 


180 


60 


46 


44 


677 





1,007 


301.0 


402.0 




Mis 


46 


17 


18 


16 


6 





103 


128.0 


91.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


1,943 


282 


251 


350 


730 


16 


3,572 


154.8 


78.0 






54.4% 


7.9% 


7.0% 


9.8% 


20.4% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


782 


128 


69 


88 


25 


11 


1,103 


90.7 


60.0 






70.9% 


11.6% 


6.3% 


8.0% 


2.3% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 6A 






















Halifax 


Fel 


321 


48 


80 


35 


25 


1 


510 


98.2 


65.5 






62.9% 


9.4% 


15.7% 


6.9% 


4.9% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


130 


40 


43 


25 


17 


3 


258 


129.7 


89.5 






50.4% 


15.5% 


16.7% 


9.7% 


6.6% 


1.2% 


100.0% 







163 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 6B 






















Bertie 


Fel 


174 


15 


13 


10 


5 





226 


76.9 


40.0 




Mis 


39 


6 


15 


9 


6 





75 


125.5 


80.0 


Hertford 


Fel 


207 


17 


55 


30 


7 


1 


317 


96.0 


49.0 




Mis 


57 


10 


16 


18 


7 





108 


130.9 


89.0 


Northampton 


Fel 


108 


33 


70 


83 


11 





305 


139.3 


148.0 




Mis 


44 


7 


7 


15 


5 


2 


80 


142.0 


69.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


489 


65 


138 


132 


23 


1 


848 


106.5 


58.0 






57.7% 


7.7% 


16.3% 


15.6% 


2.7% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


140 


23 


38 


42 


18 


2 


263 


132.8 


82.0 






53.2% 


8.7% 


14.4% 


16.0% 


6.8% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 7A 






















Nash 


Fel 


493 


85 


102 


109 


14 





803 


95.0 


67.0 






61.4% 


10.6% 


12.7% 


13.6% 


1.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


229 


35 


40 


57 


12 





373 


110.9 


69.0 






61.4% 


9.4% 


10.7% 


15.3% 


3.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 7B-C 






















Edgecombe 


Fel 


474 


32 


59 


54 


13 


1 


633 


77.9 


40.0 




Mis 


230 


38 


36 


51 


24 


3 


382 


114.8 


71.5 


Wilson 


Fel 


475 


116 


67 


52 


46 


3 


759 


95.4 


49.0 




Mis 


189 


48 


37 


14 


16 


1 


305 


96.0 


68.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


949 


148 


126 


106 


59 


4 


1,392 


87.5 


49.0 






68.2% 


10.6% 


9.1% 


7.6% 


4.2% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


419 


86 


73 


65 


40 


4 


687 


106.5 


69.0 






61.0% 


12.5% 


10.6% 


9.5% 


5.8% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






District 8A 






















Greene 


Fel 


25 


4 


19 


62 


2 





112 


195.8 


217.5 




Mis 


26 


8 


4 


16 


3 





57 


148.1 


101.0 


Lenoir 


Fel 


289 


57 


32 


37 


2 





417 


71.3 


49.0 




Mis 


183 


32 


30 


22 


1 





268 


71.2 


48.5 


District Totals 


Fel 


314 


61 


51 


99 


4 





529 


97.7 


63.0 






59.4% 


11.5% 


9.6% 


18.7% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


209 


40 


34 


38 


4 





325 


84.7 


56.0 






64.3% 


12.3% 


10.5% 


11.7% 


1.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 8B 






















Wayne 


Fel 


342 


72 


48 


70 


26 





558 


101.4 


63.0 






61.3% 


12.9% 


8.6% 


12.5% 


4.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


364 


110 


108 


128 


29 


2 


741 


118.6 


92.0 






49.1% 


14.8% 


14.6% 


17.3% 


3.9% 


0.3% 


100.0% 







164 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 9 






















Franklin 


Fel 


192 


33 


57 


44 


13 





339 


111.9 


83.0 




Mis 


102 


86 


35 


42 


10 





275 


128.8 


112.0 


Granville 


Fel 


260 


160 


72 


103 


22 





617 


126.2 


97.0 




Mis 


106 


24 


42 


41 


16 


2 


231 


144.3 


99.0 


Person 


Fel 


103 


34 


49 


52 


15 





253 


143.5 


113.0 




Mis 


87 


42 


34 


44 


10 


4 


221 


153.1 


106.0 


Vance 


Fel 


503 


174 


164 


73 


61 


21 


996 


140.3 


90.0 




Mis 


249 


67 


110 


74 


14 


4 


518 


119.0 


99.0 


Warren 


Fel 


60 


25 


18 


61 


12 





176 


171.2 


132.0 




Mis 


57 


11 


21 


27 


15 





131 


166.4 


112.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


1,118 


426 


360 


333 


123 


21 


2,381 


135.2 


96.0 






47.0% 


17.9% 


15.1% 


14.0% 


5.2% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


601 


230 


242 


228 


65 


10 


1,376 


135.2 


102.0 






43.7% 


16.7% 


17.6% 


16.6% 


4.7% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






District 10A-D 






















Wake 


Fel 


2,389 


458 


442 


519 


119 


2 


3,929 


102.4 


74.0 






60.8% 


11.7% 


11.2% 


13.2% 


3.0% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


2,294 


192 


162 


126 


31 


3 


2,808 


67.0 


46.0 






81.7% 


6.8% 


5.8% 


4.5% 


1.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 11 






















Harnett 


Fel 


326 


46 


35 


28 


9 


1 


445 


86.5 


57.0 




Mis 


115 


20 


19 


9 


2 





165 


78.8 


70.0 


Johnston 


Fel 


352 


45 


21 


14 


4 





436 


66.1 


55.0 




Mis 


298 


35 


32 


14 








379 


57.7 


42.0 


Lee 


Fel 


342 


57 


32 


23 








454 


73.7 


61.0 




Mis 


153 


45 


21 


16 








235 


74.5 


58.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


1,020 


148 


88 


65 


13 


1 


1,335 


75.5 


58.0 






76.4% 


11.1% 


6.6% 


4.9% 


1.0% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


566 


100 


72 


39 


2 





779 


67.3 


53.0 






72.7% 


12.8% 


9.2% 


5.0% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 12A-C 






















Cumberland 


Fel 


1,038 


190 


169 


221 


139 


8 


1,765 


122.8 


69.0 






58.8% 


10.8% 


9.6% 


12.5% 


7.9% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


235 


38 


44 


55 


6 


2 


380 


102.7 


73.0 






61.8% 


10.0% 


11.6% 


14.5% 


1.6% 


0.5% 


100.0% 







165 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 13 






















Bladen 


Fel 


46 


33 


49 


32 


1 





161 


127.0 


132.0 




Mis 


81 


27 


34 


33 


2 





177 


118.1 


101.0 


Brunswick 


Fel 


269 


128 


143 


104 


3 


1 


648 


112.4 


99.0 




Mis 


133 


30 


17 


25 


2 





207 


84.6 


66.0 


Columbus 


Fel 


62 


66 


37 


93 


27 


2 


287 


180.3 


140.0 




Mis 


107 


18 


41 


57 


14 


1 


238 


144.8 


112.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


377 


227 


229 


229 


31 


3 


1,096 


132.3 


112.0 






34.4% 


20.7% 


20.9% 


20.9% 


2.8% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


321 


75 


92 


115 


18 


1 


622 


117.1 


88.5 






51.6% 


12.1% 


14.8% 


18.5% 


2.9% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 14A-B 






















Durham 


Fel 


729 


153 


238 


359 


67 


19 


1,565 


138.7 


98.0 






46.6% 


9.8% 


15.2% 


22.9% 


4.3% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


135 


38 


29 


61 


13 


39 


315 


253.3 


98.0 






42.9% 


12.1% 


9.2% 


19.4% 


4.1% 


12.4% 


100.0% 






District 15A 






















Alamance 


Fel 


1,273 


139 


247 


141 


28 





1,828 


81.2 


58.0 






69.6% 


7.6% 


13.5% 


7.7% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


644 


67 


35 


60 


7 


2 


815 


72.1 


52.0 






79.0% 


8.2% 


4.3% 


7.4% 


0.9% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 15B 






















Chatham 


Fel 


71 


27 


53 


73 


13 





237 


157.3 


132.0 




Mis 


48 


17 


8 


8 


3 





84 


100.3 


76.0 


Orange 


Fel 


354 


110 


258 


79 


5 





806 


109.3 


100.0 




Mis 


78 


14 


8 


8 


3 





111 


80.7 


62.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


425 


137 


311 


152 


18 





1,043 


120.2 


107.0 






40.7% 


13.1% 


29.8% 


14.6% 


1.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


126 


31 


16 


16 


6 





195 


89.2 


66.0 






64.6% 


15.9% 


8.2% 


8.2% 


3.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 16A 






















Hoke 


Fel 


107 


30 


23 


25 








185 


80.5 


51.0 




Mis 


52 


8 


10 


4 


1 





75 


68.6 


52.0 


Scotland 


Fel 


121 


48 


67 


36 


23 


5 


300 


146.3 


107.0 




Mis 


64 


16 


26 


22 


16 


10 


154 


205.7 


115.5 


District Totals 


Fel 


228 


78 


90 


61 


23 


5 


485 


121.2 


96.0 






47.0% 


16.1% 


18.6% 


12.6% 


4.7% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


116 


24 


36 


26 


17 


10 


229 


160.8 


83.0 






50.7% 


10.5% 


15.7% 


11.4% 


7.4% 


4.4% 


100.0% 






District 16B 






















Robeson 


Fel 


510 


309 


414 


369 


105 


2 


1,709 


154.7 


126.0 






29.8% 


18.1% 


24.2% 


21.6% 


6.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


291 


113 


131 


139 


45 


4 


723 


146.5 


105.0 






40.2% 


15.6% 


18.1% 


19.2% 


6.2% 


0.6% 


100.0% 







166 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 17A 






















Caswell 


Fel 


74 


19 


36 


15 


6 





150 


110.3 


95.0 




Mis 


96 


48 


33 


15 


4 





196 


100.0 


92.5 


Rockingham 


Fel 


209 


78 


192 


391 


77 





947 


188.8 


176.0 




Mis 


270 


84 


179 


202 


15 


1 


751 


135.3 


126.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


283 


97 


228 


406 


83 





1,097 


178.1 


161.0 






25.8% 


8.8% 


20.8% 


37.0% 


7.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


366 


132 


212 


217 


19 


1 


947 


128.0 


115.0 






38.6% 


13.9% 


22.4% 


22.9% 


2.0% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 17B 






















Stokes 


Fel 


130 


30 


38 


50 


5 





253 


122.3 


89.0 




Mis 


134 


41 


54 


35 


4 





268 


109.0 


90.5 


Surry 


Fel 


456 


124 


52 


67 


8 





707 


95.0 


77.0 




Mis 


482 


115 


68 


43 


11 





719 


82.6 


69.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


586 


154 


90 


117 


13 





960 


102.2 


78.0 






61.0% 


16.0% 


9.4% 


12.2% 


1.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


616 


156 


122 


78 


15 





987 


89.7 


71.0 






62.4% 


15.8% 


12.4% 


7.9% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 18A-E 






















Guilford 


Fel 


2,698 


626 


487 


516 


150 


59 


4,536 


113.2 


75.0 






59.5% 


13.8% 


10.7% 


11.4% 


3.3% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


406 


75 


61 


59 


12 


1 


614 


85.7 


60.0 






66.1% 


12.2% 


9.9% 


9.6% 


2.0% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 19A 






















Cabarrus 


Fel 


687 


111 


137 


75 


17 





1,027 


93.9 


68.0 






66.9% 


10.8% 


13.3% 


7.3% 


1.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


455 


129 


73 


58 


6 





721 


84.5 


74.0 






63.1% 


17.9% 


10.1% 


8.0% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 19B 






















Montgomery 


Fel 


28 


38 


38 


42 


19 





165 


187.9 


148.0 




Mis 


68 


37 


41 


38 


5 


11 


200 


191.1 


118.0 


Randolph 


Fel 


173 


182 


250 


217 


181 


9 


1,012 


205.1 


154.0 




Mis 


332 


141 


196 


120 


38 


5 


832 


136.3 


111.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


201 


220 


288 


259 


200 


9 


1,177 


202.7 


153.0 






17.1% 


18.7% 


24.5% 


22.0% 


17.0% 


0.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


400 


178 


237 


158 


43 


16 


1,032 


146.9 


111.0 






38.8% 


17.2% 


23.0% 


15.3% 


4.2% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






District 19C 






















Rowan 


Fel 


434 


103 


221 


193 


55 


4 


1,010 


140.0 


113.0 






43.0% 


10.2% 


21.9% 


19.1% 


5.4% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


197 


41 


70 


63 


37 


1 


409 


137.1 


96.0 






48.2% 


10.0% 


17.1% 


15.4% 


9.0% 


0.2% 


100.0% 







167 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











Apes of Dis 


posed Cases 


i (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 20A 






















Anson 


Fel 


124 


20 


9 


33 


18 





204 


129.5 


82.0 




Mis 


217 


28 


28 


22 


3 





298 


76.2 


46.0 


Moore 


Fel 


521 


154 


111 


75 


11 


3 


875 


95.5 


76.0 




Mis 


297 


50 


49 


40 


13 


5 


454 


101.6 


64.0 


Richmond 


Fel 


378 


93 


54 


59 


2 





586 


88.5 


68.5 




Mis 


409 


69 


43 


24 


6 





551 


68.2 


52.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


1,023 


267 


174 


167 


31 


3 


1,665 


97.2 


72.0 






61.4% 


16.0% 


10.5% 


10.0% 


1.9% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


923 


147 


120 


86 


22 


5 


1,303 


81.6 


56.0 






70.8% 


11.3% 


9.2% 


6.6% 


1.7% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 20B 






















Stanly 


Fel 


221 


25 


38 


104 


82 





470 


172.5 


117.0 




Mis 


217 


50 


70 


62 


21 


2 


422 


124.2 


85.5 


Union 


Fel 


497 


84 


61 


50 


11 





703 


80.3 


57.0 




Mis 


342 


43 


57 


41 


5 





488 


80.6 


51.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


718 


109 


99 


154 


93 





1,173 


117.2 


71.0 






61.2% 


9.3% 


8.4% 


13.1% 


7.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


559 


93 


127 


103 


26 


2 


910 


100.8 


73.0 






61.4% 


10.2% 


14.0% 


11.3% 


2.9% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 21A-D 






















Forsyth 


Fel 


1,439 


376 


378 


493 


83 


12 


2,781 


123.4 


88.0 






51.7% 


13.5% 


13.6% 


17.7% 


3.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,001 


379 


315 


262 


48 


4 


2,009 


112.5 


91.0 






49.8% 


18.9% 


15.7% 


13.0% 


2.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 22 






















Alexander 


Fel 


38 


58 


11 


34 


2 


1 


144 


134.5 


97.0 




Mis 


105 


29 


29 


21 


8 





192 


109.2 


74.0 


Davidson 


Fel 


168 


60 


48 


55 


13 





344 


113.3 


104.0 




Mis 


320 


40 


69 


40 


3 





472 


82.1 


56.5 


Davie 


Fel 


61 


8 


11 


38 


6 





124 


136.4 


103.5 




Mis 


82 


13 


21 


20 


10 





146 


124.1 


82.0 


Iredell 


Fel 


433 


130 


93 


131 


21 





808 


110.2 


76.0 




Mis 


503 


67 


57 


90 


16 





733 


92.0 


57.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


700 


256 


163 


258 


42 


1 


1,420 


115.7 


91.0 






49.3% 


18.0% 


11.5% 


18.2% 


3.0% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,010 


149 


176 


171 


37 





1,543 


94.1 


60.0 






65.5% 


9.7% 


11.4% 


11.1% 


2.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







168 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 23 






















Alleghany 


Fel 


11 


1 


5 


11 


2 





30 


165.1 


131.0 




Mis 


9 


1 


5 


8 


8 





31 


215.3 


187.0 


Ashe 


Fel 


11 


10 


9 


13 


13 





56 


228.8 


176.0 




Mis 


24 


15 


15 


33 


12 


2 


101 


211.7 


174.0 


Wilkes 


Fel 


126 


26 


52 


104 


18 


1 


327 


163.5 


136.0 




Mis 


147 


42 


49 


61 


24 


10 


333 


155.4 


103.0 


Yadkin 


Fel 


100 


37 


42 


25 


16 





220 


140.5 


117.0 




Mis 


67 


14 


33 


14 


8 


9 


145 


170.1 


113.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


248 


74 


108 


153 


49 


1 


633 


161.3 


118.0 






39.2% 


11.7% 


17.1% 


24.2% 


7.7% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


247 


72 


102 


116 


52 


21 


610 


171.2 


114.0 






40.5% 


11.8% 


16.7% 


19.0% 


8.5% 


3.4% 


100.0% 






District 24 






















Avery 


Fel 


23 


23 


5 


5 


1 





57 


120.0 


101.0 




Mis 


10 


10 


4 


9 


2 





35 


149.1 


103.0 


Madison 


Fel 


32 


9 


30 


20 


16 


15 


122 


247.0 


146.0 




Mis 


11 


5 


2 


13 


6 





37 


189.8 


196.0 


Mitchell 


Fel 


14 





3 


24 


8 


5 


54 


269.1 


204.0 




Mis 


3 


2 


7 


9 


5 


1 


27 


270.3 


244.0 


Watauga 


Fel 


101 


9 


30 


77 


20 


10 


247 


190.3 


156.0 




Mis 


53 


5 


25 


22 


5 





110 


122.0 


99.0 


Yancey 


Fel 


12 





5 


10 


9 


1 


37 


221.0 


227.0 




Mis 


10 





1 


21 


9 


1 


42 


254.8 


227.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


182 


41 


73 


136 


54 


31 


517 


206.4 


151.0 






35.2% 


7.9% 


14.1% 


26.3% 


10.4% 


6.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


87 


22 


39 


74 


27 


2 


251 


173.9 


134.0 






34.7% 


8.8% 


15.5% 


29.5% 


10.8% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 25A 






















Burke 


Fel 


226 


60 


87 


84 


27 


42 


526 


184.8 


107.0 




Mis 


283 


94 


142 


119 


21 


3 


662 


129.0 


110.0 


Caldwell 


Fel 


143 


43 


159 


286 


81 


3 


715 


204.6 


186.0 




Mis 


160 


112 


167 


147 


13 


2 


601 


144.3 


131.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


369 


103 


246 


370 


108 


45 


1,241 


196.2 


158.0 






29.7% 


8.3% 


19.8% 


29.8% 


8.7% 


3.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


443 


206 


309 


266 


34 


5 


1,263 


136.3 


118.0 






35.1% 


16.3% 


24.5% 


21.1% 


2.7% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 25B 






















Catawba 


Fel 


226 


151 


203 


267 


147 


23 


1,017 


215.9 


155.0 






22.2% 


14.8% 


20.0% 


26.3% 


14.5% 


2.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


248 


235 


215 


196 


85 


9 


988 


173.1 


123.0 






25.1% 


23.8% 


21.8% 


19.8% 


8.6% 


0.9% 


100.0% 







169 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











Ages of Disf 


>osed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 26A-C 






















Mecklenburg 


Fel 


2,225 


508 


558 


416 


45 


13 


3,765 


99.7 


76.0 






59.1% 


13.5% 


14.8% 


11.0% 


1.2% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


985 


209 


256 


167 


29 


32 


1,678 


125.0 


80.0 






58.7% 


12.5% 


15.3% 


10.0% 


1.7% 


1.9% 


100.0% 






District 27A 






















Gaston 


Fel 


843 


195 


413 


233 


71 


19 


1,774 


122.6 


98.0 






47.5% 


11.0% 


23.3% 


13.1% 


4.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


237 


61 


140 


122 


80 


31 


671 


204.3 


127.0 






35.3% 


9.1% 


20.9% 


18.2% 


11.9% 


4.6% 


100.0% 






District 27B 






















Cleveland 


Fel 


275 


101 


208 


217 


65 


6 


872 


163.6 


137.5 




Mis 


99 


17 


42 


77 


27 


4 


266 


182.9 


142.0 


Lincoln 


Fel 


148 


41 


42 


70 


23 





324 


142.2 


97.0 




Mis 


69 


7 


14 


13 


8 


1 


112 


123.6 


64.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


423 


142 


250 


287 


88 


6 


1,196 


157.8 


132.0 






35.4% 


11.9% 


20.9% 


24.0% 


7.4% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


168 


24 


56 


90 


35 


5 


378 


165.3 


119.0 






44.4% 


6.3% 


14.8% 


23.8% 


9.3% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






District 28 






















Buncombe 


Fel 


357 


149 


239 


249 


26 





1,020 


135.7 


124.0 






35.0% 


14.6% 


23.4% 


24.4% 


2.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


352 


64 


44 


31 


3 





494 


72.2 


50.0 






71.3% 


13.0% 


8.9% 


6.3% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 29 






















Henderson 


Fel 


113 


66 


200 


227 


64 


16 


686 


215.0 


177.0 




Mis 


121 


37 


67 


56 


6 





287 


120.0 


105.0 


McDowell 


Fel 


181 


19 


50 


25 


36 


2 


313 


150.8 


86.0 




Mis 


51 


33 


51 


76 


10 


6 


227 


191.3 


154.0 


Polk 


Fel 


16 


9 


16 


11 


16 


8 


76 


268.7 


153.0 




Mis 


2H 


6 


11 


19 


6 





70 


162.4 


129.0 


Rutherford 


Fel 


109 


44 


38 


50 


25 


6 


272 


170.7 


105.0 




Mis 


141 


47 


93 


73 


22 


4 


380 


151.7 


121.5 


Transylvania 


Fel 


62 


14 


60 


90 


51 


5 


282 


236.3 


212.0 




Mis 


24 


5 


8 


14 


10 


3 


64 


225.1 


152.5 


District Totals 


Fel 


481 


152 


364 


403 


192 


37 


1,629 


201.5 


154.0 






29.5% 


9.3% 


22.3% 


24.7% 


11.8% 


2.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


365 


128 


230 


238 


54 


13 


1,028 


156.9 


126.0 






35.5% 


12.5% 


22.4% 


23.2% 


5.3% 


1.3% 


100.0% 







170 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











Ages of Disposed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 30A 






















Cherokee 


Fel 


76 


51 


57 


68 


17 





269 


159.7 


136.0 




Mis 


20 


12 


17 


17 


9 


1 


76 


205.2 


162.0 


Clay 


Fel 


1 


5 


2 


6 


5 





19 


277.8 


207.0 




Mis 


11 


4 


4 


3 


5 





27 


138.9 


118.0 


Graham 


Fel 


38 


1 


4 


16 


13 


2 


74 


235.7 


69.0 




Mis 


11 


2 


3 


2 





1 


19 


125.2 


55.0 


Macon 


Fel 


86 


31 


10 


27 





1 


155 


107.5 


68.0 




Mis 


27 


5 


6 


1 





2 


41 


113.8 


69.0 


Swain 


Fel 


140 


17 


13 


6 


2 


1 


179 


93.1 


68.0 




Mis 


20 


8 


4 


5 








37 


107.2 


89.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


341 


105 


86 


123 


37 


4 


696 


142.2 


91.0 






49.0% 


15.1% 


12.4% 


17.7% 


5.3% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


89 


31 


34 


28 


14 


4 


200 


151.8 


104.0 






44.5% 


15.5% 


17.0% 


14.0% 


7.0% 


2.0% 


100.0% 






District 30B 






















Haywood 


Fel 


143 


40 


54 


50 


1 





288 


115.0 


92.0 




Mis 


126 


27 


37 


38 


15 





243 


117.5 


88.0 


Jackson 


Fel 


89 


26 


54 


28 


9 


1 


207 


128.9 


101.0 




Mis 


33 


12 


10 


11 


1 





67 


104.8 


98.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


232 


66 


108 


78 


10 


1 


495 


120.8 


98.0 






46.9% 


13.3% 


21.8% 


15.8% 


2.0% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


159 


39 


47 


49 


16 





310 


114.8 


88.0 






51.3% 


12.6% 


15.2% 


15.8% 


5.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


Fel 


33,083 


8,034 


9,507 


9,599 


3,329 


368 


63,920 


124.5 


86.0 






51.8% 


12.6% 


14.9% 


15.0% 


5.2% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


20,640 


4,522 


4,853 


4,504 


1,168 


251 


35,938 


111.0 


76.0 






57.4% 


12.6% 


13.5% 


12.5% 


3.3% 


0.7% 


100.0% 







171 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES DISPOSED 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 



osecutorial 






Ages of Di« 


posed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


1 


Fel 


476 


127 


166 


171 


57 


13 


1,010 


142.8 


97.0 




% of Total 


47.1% 


12.6% 


16.4% 


16.9% 


5.6% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,141 


224 


255 


204 


34 


4 


1,862 


93.2 


68.0 




% of Total 


61.3% 


12.0% 


13.7% 


11.0% 


1.8% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






2 


Fel 


617 


138 


183 


171 


37 


2 


1,148 


114.2 


82.5 




% of Total 


53.7% 


12.0% 


15.9% 


14.9% 


3.2% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


366 


113 


83 


83 


9 





654 


99.5 


83.0 




% of Total 


56.0% 


17.3% 


12.7% 


12.7% 


1.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






3A 


Fel 


510 


221 


165 


284 


45 





1,225 


134.5 


101.0 




% of Total 


41.6% 


18.0% 


13.5% 


23.2% 


3.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


643 


85 


115 


174 


58 


2 


1,077 


114.0 


62.0 




% of Total 


59.7% 


7.9% 


10.7% 


16.2% 


5.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






3B 


Fel 


812 


222 


365 


182 


40 


2 


1,623 


110.9 


90.0 




% of Total 


50.0% 


13.7% 


22.5% 


11.2% 


2.5% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,011 


117 


102 


80 


13 





1,323 


66.2 


47.0 




% of Total 


76.4% 


8.8% 


7.7% 


6.0% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






4 


Fel 


2,014 


295 


331 


88 


9 





2,737 


61.6 


45.0 




% of Total 


73.6% 


10.8% 


12.1% 


3.2% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


564 


43 


49 


23 


5 





684 


60.4 


41.0 




% of Total 


82.5% 


6.3% 


7.2% 


3.4% 


0.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






s 


Fel 


1,943 


282 


251 


350 


730 


16 


3,572 


154.8 


78.0 




% of Total 


54.4% 


7.9% 


7.0% 


9.8% 


20.4% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


782 


128 


69 


88 


25 


11 


1,103 


90.7 


60.0 




% of Total 


70.9% 


11.6% 


6.3% 


8.0% 


2.3% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






6A 


Fel 


321 


48 


80 


35 


25 


1 


510 


98.2 


65.5 




% of Total 


62.9% 


9.4% 


15.7% 


6.9% 


4.9% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


130 


40 


43 


25 


17 


3 


258 


129.7 


89.5 




% of Total 


50.4% 


15.5% 


16.7% 


9.7% 


6.6% 


1.2% 


100.0% 






6B 


Fel 


489 


65 


138 


132 


23 


1 


848 


106.5 


58.0 




% of Total 


57.7% 


7.7% 


16.3% 


15.6% 


2.7% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


140 


23 


38 


42 


18 


2 


263 


132.8 


82.0 




% of Total 


53.2% 


8.7% 


14.4% 


16.0% 


6.8% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






7 


Fel 


1,442 


233 


228 


215 


73 


4 


2,195 


90.2 


53.0 




% of Total 


65.7% 


10.6% 


10.4% 


9.8% 


3.3% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


648 


121 


113 


122 


52 


4 


1,060 


108.0 


69.0 




% of Total 


61.1% 


11.4% 


10.7% 


11.5% 


4.9% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






X 


Fel 


656 


133 


99 


169 


30 





1,087 


99.6 


63.0 




% of Total 


60.3% 


12.2% 


9.1% 


15.5% 


2.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


573 


150 


142 


166 


33 


2 


1,066 


108.3 


83.0 




% of Total 


53.8% 


14.1% 


13.3% 


15.6% 


3.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts (shown in the map in Part II) do not coincide with superior court districts. 



172 






AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES DISPOSED 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 



osecutor 


al 






Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


9 


Fel 


1,118 


426 


360 


333 


123 


21 


2,381 


135.2 


96.0 




% of Total 


47.0% 


17.9% 


15.1% 


14.0% 


5.2% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


601 


230 


242 


228 


65 


10 


1,376 


135.2 


102.0 




% of Total 


43.7% 


16.7% 


17.6% 


16.6% 


4.7% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






10 


Fel 


2,389 


458 


442 


519 


119 


2 


3,929 


102.4 


74.0 




% of Total 


60.8% 


11.7% 


11.2% 


13.2% 


3.0% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


2,294 


192 


162 


126 


31 


3 


2,808 


67.0 


46.0 




% of Total 


81.7% 


6.8% 


5.8% 


4.5% 


1.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






11 


Fel 


1,020 


148 


88 


65 


13 


1 


1,335 


75.5 


58.0 




% of Total 


76.4% 


11.1% 


6.6% 


4.9% 


1.0% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


566 


100 


72 


39 


2 





779 


67.3 


53.0 




% of Total 


72.7% 


12.8% 


9.2% 


5.0% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






12 


Fel 


1,038 


190 


169 


221 


139 


8 


1,765 


122.8 


69.0 




% of Total 


58.8% 


10.8% 


9.6% 


12.5% 


7.9% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


235 


38 


44 


55 


6 


2 


380 


102.7 


73.0 




% of Total 


61.8% 


10.0% 


11.6% 


14.5% 


1.6% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






13 


Fel 


377 


227 


229 


229 


31 


3 


1,096 


132.3 


112.0 




% of Total 


34.4% 


20.7% 


20.9% 


20.9% 


2.8% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


321 


75 


92 


115 


18 


1 


622 


117.1 


88.5 




% of Total 


51.6% 


12.1% 


14.8% 


18.5% 


2.9% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






14 


Fel 


729 


153 


238 


359 


67 


19 


1,565 


138.7 


98.0 




% of Total 


46.6% 


9.8% 


15.2% 


22.9% 


4.3% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


135 


38 


29 


61 


13 


39 


315 


253.3 


98.0 




% of Total 


42.9% 


12.1% 


9.2% 


19.4% 


4.1% 


12.4% 


100.0% 






15A 


Fel 


1,273 


139 


247 


141 


28 





1,828 


81.2 


58.0 




% of Total 


69.6% 


7.6% 


13.5% 


7.7% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


644 


67 


35 


60 


7 


2 


815 


72.1 


52.0 




% of Total 


79.0% 


8.2% 


4.3% 


7.4% 


0.9% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






15B 


Fel 


425 


137 


311 


152 


18 





1,043 


120.2 


107.0 




% of Total 


40.7% 


13.1% 


29.8% 


14.6% 


1.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


126 


31 


16 


16 


6 





195 


89.2 


66.0 




% of Total 


64.6% 


15.9% 


8.2% 


8.2% 


3.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






16A 


Fel 


228 


78 


90 


61 


23 


5 


485 


121.2 


96.0 




% of Total 


47.0% 


16.1% 


18.6% 


12.6% 


4.7% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


116 


24 


36 


26 


17 


10 


229 


160.8 


83.0 




% of Total 


50.7% 


10.5% 


15.7% 


11.4% 


7.4% 


4.4% 


100.0% 






16B 


Fel 


510 


309 


414 


369 


105 


2 


1,709 


154.7 


126.0 




% of Total 


29.8% 


18.1% 


24.2% 


21.6% 


6.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


291 


113 


131 


139 


45 


4 


723 


146.5 


105.0 




% of Total 


40.2% 


15.6% 


18.1% 


19.2% 


6.2% 


0.6% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts (shown in the map in Part II) do not coincide with superior court districts. 



173 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES DISPOSED 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 



Prosecutorial 






Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


17A 


Fel 


283 


07 


228 


406 


83 





1,097 


178.1 


161.0 




% of Total 


25.8% 


8.8% 


20.8% 


37.0% 


7.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


366 


132 


212 


217 


19 


1 


947 


128.0 


115.0 




% of Total 


38.6% 


13.9% 


22.4% 


22.9% 


2.0% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






17B 


Fel 


586 


154 


90 


117 


13 





960 


102.2 


78.0 




% of Total 


61.0% 


16.0% 


9.4% 


12.2% 


1.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


616 


156 


122 


78 


15 





987 


89.7 


71.0 




% of Total 


62.4% 


15.8% 


12.4% 


7.9% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






18 


Fel 


2,698 


626 


487 


516 


150 


59 


4,536 


113.2 


75.0 




% of Total 


59.5% 


13.8% 


10.7% 


11.4% 


3.3% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


406 


75 


61 


59 


12 


1 


614 


85.7 


60.0 




% of Total 


66.1% 


12.2% 


9.9% 


9.6% 


2.0% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






19A 


Fel 


1,121 


214 


358 


268 


72 


4 


2,037 


116.7 


81.0 




% of Total 


55.0% 


10.5% 


17.6% 


13.2% 


3.5% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


652 


170 


143 


121 


43 


1 


1,130 


103.5 


77.0 




% of Total 


57.7% 


15.0% 


12.7% 


10.7% 


3.8% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






19B 


Fel 


201 


220 


288 


259 


200 


9 


1,177 


202.7 


153.0 




% of Total 


17.1% 


18.7% 


24.5% 


22.0% 


17.0% 


0.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


400 


178 


237 


158 


43 


16 


1,032 


146.9 


111.0 




% of Total 


38.8% 


17.2% 


23.0% 


15.3% 


4.2% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






20 


Fel 


1,741 


376 


273 


321 


124 


3 


2,838 


105.5 


71.5 




% of Total 


61.3% 


13.2% 


9.6% 


11.3% 


4.4% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,482 


240 


247 


189 


48 


7 


2,213 


89.5 


60.0 




% of Total 


67.0% 


10.8% 


11.2% 


8.5% 


2.2% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






21 


Fel 


1,439 


376 


378 


493 


83 


12 


2,781 


123.4 


88.0 




% of Total 


51.7% 


13.5% 


13.6% 


17.7% 


3.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,001 


379 


315 


262 


48 


4 


2,009 


112.5 


91.0 




% of Total 


49.8% 


18.9% 


15.7% 


13.0% 


2.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






22 


Fel 


700 


256 


163 


258 


42 


1 


1,420 


115.7 


91.0 




% of Total 


49.3% 


18.0% 


11.5% 


18.2% 


3.0% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,010 


149 


176 


171 


37 





1,543 


94.1 


60.0 




% of Total 


65.5% 


9.7% 


11.4% 


11.1% 


2.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






23 


Fel 


248 


74 


108 


153 


49 


1 


633 


161.3 


118.0 




% of Total 


39.2% 


11.7% 


17.1% 


24.2% 


7.7% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


247 


72 


102 


116 


52 


21 


610 


171.2 


114.0 




% of Total 


40.5% 


11.8% 


16.7% 


19.0% 


8.5% 


3.4% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts (shown in the map in Part II) do not coincide with superior court districts. 



174 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES DISPOSED 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 



Prosecutorial 






Ages of Disposed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


24 


Fel 


182 


41 


73 


136 


54 


31 


517 


206.4 


151.0 




% of Total 


35.2% 


7.9% 


14.1% 


26.3% 


10.4% 


6.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


87 


22 


39 


74 


27 


2 


251 


173.9 


134.0 




% of Total 


34.7% 


8.8% 


15.5% 


29.5% 


10.8% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






25 


Fel 


595 


254 


449 


637 


255 


68 


2,258 


205.1 


157.0 




% of Total 


26.4% 


11.2% 


19.9% 


28.2% 


11.3% 


3.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


691 


441 


524 


462 


119 


14 


2,251 


152.4 


120.0 




% of Total 


30.7% 


19.6% 


23.3% 


20.5% 


5.3% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






26 


Fel 


2,225 


508 


558 


416 


45 


13 


3,765 


99.7 


76.0 




% of Total 


59.1% 


13.5% 


14.8% 


11.0% 


1.2% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


985 


209 


256 


167 


29 


32 


1,678 


125.0 


80.0 




% of Total 


58.7% 


12.5% 


15.3% 


10.0% 


1.7% 


1.9% 


100.0% 






27A 


Fel 


843 


195 


413 


233 


71 


19 


1,774 


122.6 


98.0 




% of Total 


47.5% 


11.0% 


23.3% 


13.1% 


4.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


237 


61 


140 


122 


80 


31 


671 


204.3 


127.0 




% of Total 


35.3% 


9.1% 


20.9% 


18.2% 


11.9% 


4.6% 


100.0% 






27B 


Fel 


423 


142 


250 


287 


88 


6 


1,196 


157.8 


132.0 




% of Total 


35.4% 


11.9% 


20.9% 


24.0% 


7.4% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


168 


24 


56 


90 


35 


5 


378 


165.3 


119.0 




% of Total 


44.4% 


6.3% 


14.8% 


23.8% 


9.3% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






28 


Fel 


357 


149 


239 


249 


26 





1,020 


135.7 


124.0 




% of Total 


35.0% 


14.6% 


23.4% 


24.4% 


2.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


352 


64 


44 


31 


3 





494 


72.2 


50.0 




% of Total 


71.3% 


13.0% 


8.9% 


6.3% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






29 


Fel 


481 


152 


364 


403 


192 


37 


1,629 


201.5 


154.0 




% of Total 


29.5% 


9.3% 


22.3% 


24.7% 


11.8% 


2.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


365 


128 


230 


238 


54 


13 


1,028 


156.9 


126.0 




% of Total 


35.5% 


12.5% 


22.4% 


23.2% 


5.3% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






30 


Fel 


573 


171 


194 


201 


47 


5 


1,191 


133.3 


94.0 




% of Total 


48.1% 


14.4% 


16.3% 


16.9% 


3.9% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


248 


70 


81 


77 


30 


4 


510 


129.3 


96.5 




% of Total 


48.6% 


13.7% 


15.9% 


15.1% 


5.9% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






State Totals Fel 


33,083 


8,034 


9,507 


9,599 


3,329 


368 


63,920 


124.5 


86.0 




% of Total 


51.8% 


12.6% 


14.9% 


15.0% 


5.2% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


20,640 


4,522 


4,853 


4,504 


1,168 


251 


35,938 


111.0 


76.0 




% of Total 


57.4% 


12.6% 


13.5% 


12.5% 


3.3% 


0.7% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts (shown in the map in Part II) do not coincide with superior court districts. 



175 



PART IV, Section 2 



District Court Division 



Caseflow Data 



The District Court Division 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow in 1989-90 of cases filed 
and disposed of in the State's district courts. 

Data are given on four major case classifications in the 
district court division: civil cases, juvenile proceedings, 
criminal cases, and infractions. Civil cases are divided 
into "small claims" cases assigned to magistrates; domes- 
tic relations cases (chiefly concerned with annulments, 
divorces, alimony, custody and support of children); and 
"general civil" cases. Juvenile proceedings are classified 
according to the nature of the offense or condition 
alleged in the petition that initiates the case. District 
court criminal cases are divided into motor vehicle cases 
(where the offense charged is defined in Chapter 20 of 
the North Carolina General Statutes) and non-motor 
vehicle criminal cases. 

Infractions are non-criminal violations of law punish- 
able by a fine not to exceed $100 and not punishable by 
imprisonment. This category of cases in the district 
courts was created effective September 1, 1986, when the 
General Assembly decriminalized most minor traffic 
offenses. Prior to September 1, 1986, "infractions" were 
prosecuted as criminal motor vehicle cases. Therefore, 
for purposes of comparing present to past district court 
criminal caseloads, criminal motor vehicle caseloads of 
1985-86 and earlier are substantially comparable to the 
combined motor vehicle and infraction caseloads of 
1986-87 and later. (This comparison is not exact, since 
not all cases now prosecuted as infractions were criminal 
motor vehicle cases in prior years. For example, the 
infraction of purchase or possession of alcohol by a 
person age 19 or 20 was neither an infraction nor a 
criminal violation prior to September 1, 1986.) 

Magistrates may handle civil, criminal, and infraction 
cases in district court. When the plaintiff in a civil case 
requests, and the amount in controversy does not exceed 
$2,000, the case may be classified as a "small claim" civil 
action and assigned to a magistrate for hearing. In 
misdemeanor or infraction cases involving alcohol, 
traffic, hunting, fishing, and boating violations, magis- 
trates may accept written appearances, waivers of trial or 
hearing, and pleas of guilty or admissions of responsi- 
bility, and enter judgment in accord with the schedule of 
fines and penalties promulgated by chief district court 
judges. Also, magistrates may accept guilty pleas in 
other misdemeanor cases where the sentence cannot be 
in excess of 30 days or a $50 fine and may hear and enter 
judgment in worthless check cases where the amount 
involved is $1,000 or less, and any prison sentence 
imposed does not exceed 30 days. 

Appeals from magistrates' judgments in civil, criminal, 
and infraction cases are to the district court, with a 
district court judge presiding. 

The bar graphs that follow illustrate that district court 
criminal cases filed and disposed of in the 1989-90 year 
greatly outnumbered civil cases. Motor vehicle criminal 
cases and infractions accounted for over fifty percent of 
total filings and dispositions, and the non-motor vehicle 
criminal cases accounted for about twenty-seven percent 
of filings and dispositions. As in past years, the greatest 



portion of district court civil filings and dispositions 
were small claims referred to magistrates. 

The large volume categories of infraction, criminal 
motor-vehicle, and civil magistrate cases are not reported 
to AOC by case file numbers. Therefore, it is not 
possible to obtain, by computer processing, the numbers 
of pending cases as of a given date or the ages of cases 
pending and ages of cases at disposition. These categories 
of cases are processed through the courts faster than any 
others, thus explaining the decision not to allocate 
personnel and computer resource to reporting these 
cases in the detail that is provided for other categories of 
cases. 

Also, juvenile proceedings and hearings on commit- 
ment or recommitment of persons to the State's mental 
hospital facilities are not reported to AOC by case file 
numbers. 

Two tables are provided on juvenile proceedings: 
offenses and conditions alleged, and numbers of adjudi- 
catory hearings held. 

Data on district court hearings for mental hospital 
commitments and recommitments are reported in Part 
III, "Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indi- 
gents." 

Ages of district court cases pending on June 30, 1990, 
and ages of cases disposed of during 1989-90 are reported 
for the domestic relations, general civil and magistrate 
appeal/ transfer, and criminal non-motor vehicle case 
categories. 

The median age of domestic relations cases pending 
on June 30, 1990, was 206 days, compared with a median 
age of 176 days for domestic relations cases pending on 
June 30, 1989. For general civil and magistrate appeal/ 
transfer cases, the median age of cases pending on June 
30, 1990, was 177 days, compared with 170 days on June 
30, 1989. At the time of disposition during 1989-90, the 
median age of domestic relations cases was 50 days, and 
the median age for general civil and magistrate appeal/ 
transfer cases was 104 days, compared with a median age 
of 52 days at the time of disposition for domestic rela- 
tions cases and 112 days for general civil and magistrate 
appeal/ transfer cases during 1988-89. 

For district court non-motor vehicle criminal cases, 
the median age for cases pending on June 30, 1990, was 
65 days compared with a median age of 58 days for cases 
pending on June 30, 1989. The median age of non-motor 
vehicle criminal cases at the time of disposition during 
1989-90 was 33 days, compared with 30 days for these 
cases at the time of disposition during 1988-89. 

The statewide total district court filings during 1989- 
90, not including juvenile cases and mental hospital com- 
mitment hearings, was 2,270,456 cases, compared with 
2,203,743 during 1988-89, an increase of 66,713 filings 
(3.0%). Considering criminal motor vehicle and infrac- 
tion cases together, there were 1,166,325 of these cases 
filed during 1989-90, compared with 1,145,833 during 
1988-89, an increase of 20,492 cases (1.8%). Non-motor 
vehicle criminal case filings increased by 46,438 cases 
(8.3%). 

During 1989-90, compared to 1988-89, filings of gen- 



179 



The District Court Division, Continued 

eral civil and magistrate appeal; transfer cases increased Total district court filings have increased in every 

by 9.3%. filings of domestic relations cases increased by fiscal year since 1981-82. This overall upward trend 

6.9 r r. and filings of civil license revocation cases in- continued in 1989-90. 

creased bv 7.7 r f . Civil magistrate filings decreased from 
308.029 cases in 1988-89 to 292,572 cases in 1989-90, a 
decrease of 5.0%. 



180 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



669,667 674,665 



586,438 



292,572 293,055 



7 - 140 72,890 



63,175 59,850 




67,916 



N/A 




DOMESTIC 


GENERAL 


CIVIL 


CIVIL 


INFRACTION 


CRIMINAL 


CRIMINAL 


RELATIONS 


CIVIL 


MAGISTRATE 


LICENSE 
REVOCATION 




MOTOR 
VEHICLE 


NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE 



LJ Filings 



Dispositions 



Criminal motor vehicle cases and infractions make up 
more than half (51.4%) of total district court filings. The 
civil case categories together (domestic, general civil, 
civil magistrate, and civil license revocations) accounted 
for 22.1% of all filings (500,803 of the total 2,270,456), 
and the criminal non-motor vehicle case filings accounted 



for the remaining 26.6% of total filings. The 67,916 civil 
license revocation filings shown are the automatic, 10- 
day driver license suspensions imposed on drivers 
arrested on suspicion of impaired driving whose breath 
tests show a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10 or 
more. They are counted only at filing. 



181 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
1980-81 - 1989-90 




Dispositions 



Number 

of 

Cases 



2,500,000 



2,000,000 



1,500,000 



1,000,000 



500,000 



80-81 



81-82 



82-83 83-84 



84-85 



85-86 



86-87 87-88 



88-89 89-90 



During the nineteen-eighties, filings and dispositions in 
the district courts (including all civil, infraction, and 
criminal cases) have increased every year except fiscal 
1 980-81 to 1981-82. During 1989-90, there were 2,270,456 
total filings (including civil license revocations), and 



2,146,510 dispositions (not including civil license revoca- 
tion cases, which are counted only at the time of filing). 
Filings increased by 3.0% and dispositions increased by 
3.6% from 1988-89 to 1989-90. 



182 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1980-81 - 1989-90 



Number 

of 

Cases 




* Dispositi 



ions 



Domestic and General Civil Cases 



Filings 




Dispositions 



450,000 



300,000 



150,000 



80-81 



81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 



For several years, civil magistrate (often known as small 
claims) case filings have increased more quickly than 
other civil district court filings. However, from 1988-89 
to 1989-90, civil magistrate filings decreased by 5.0%, 
from 308,029 in 1988-89 to 292,572 in 1989-90. Domestic 



and general civil filings increased by 8.0% from 1988-89 
to 1989-90. Total civil district court filings (not including 
civil license revocation cases) decreased by 1.2% from 
437,966 filings in 1988-89 to 432,887 in 1989-90. 



183 



CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



77,140 



72,890 



63.175 



59,850 



37.308 



40,633 



31,936 



■ '" ii r ' 



36,1! 



GENERAL CIVIL AND CIVIL 
MAGISTRATF APPEALS/TRANSFERS 

I ] Begin Pending I I Filings 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 
I I Dispositions Hill End Pending 



In 1989-90, civil case filings exceeded dispositions. As a 
result, there was an increase of 8.9% in the number of 
general civil and civil magistrate appeal/ transfer cases 
pending at the end of the year, compared to the number 



of these cases pending at the beginning of the year. The 
number of pending domestic relations cases also in- 
creased, by 13.3%. 



184 



CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES FILED 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



58,723 




URESA 



IV-D CHILD 
SUPPORT 



NON IV-D 

CHILD 
SUPPORT 



2.2% 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 

13.5% 9.8% 



OTHER 



29.5% 



GENERAL 
CIVIL 



41.9% 



MAGISTRATE 

APPEALS/ 
TRANSFERS 



3.2% 



"URESA" stands for the Uniform Reciprocal Enforce- 
ment of Support Act, and refers to actions enforcing 
child support orders entered by judges in one state or 
county by the courts in another. "IV-D Child Support" 
refers to actions initiated by counties or the Department 
of Human Resources to collect child support owed to 
social services clients. "Non IV-D Child Support" actions 
are initiated by custodial parents themselves. The 
"Other" category includes actions such as annulments 
and divorces in which child support is not an issue. 



"General Civil" refers to other civil cases in district court 
(contracts, collections, negligence, etc.), and "Magistrate 
Appeals/ Transfers" are appeals and transfers from small 
claims court. URESA case filings decreased from 3,264 
in 1988-89 to 3,044 in 1989-90. The largest numerical 
increase in civil district court filings was in the general 
civil category, which grew by 5,095 cases to 58,723. As 
was the case last year, the largest proportional increase 
came in IV-D child support cases, and was 12.0%. 



185 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 



Domestic Relations 



Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/89 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/90 



General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 

Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/89 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/90 



District 1 


























Camden 


\o 


36 


55 


40 


72.7% 


15 


11 


14 


25 


11 


44.0% 


14 


Chowan 


53 


211 


264 


194 


73.5% 


70 


46 


55 


101 


70 


69.3% 


31 


Currituck 


59 


117 


176 


110 


62.5% 


66 


73 


87 


160 


57 


35.6% 


103 


Dare 


106 


239 


345 


231 


67.0% 


114 


194 


360 


554 


330 


59.6% 


224 


Gates 


20 


69 


89 


55 


61.8% 


34 


20 


26 


46 


37 


80.4% 


9 


Pasquotank 


135 


340 


475 


320 


67.4% 


155 


104 


160 


264 


139 


52.7% 


125 


Perquimans 


70 


83 


153 


71 


46.4% 


82 


38 


31 


69 


40 


58.0% 


29 


District Totals 


462 


1,095 


1,557 


1,021 


65.6% 


536 


486 


733 


1,219 


684 


56.1% 


535 


District 2 


























Beaufort 


202 


525 


727 


474 


65.2% 


253 


144 


186 


330 


152 


46.1% 


178 


Hyde 


25 


44 


69 


35 


50.7% 


34 


14 


22 


36 


14 


38.9% 


22 


Martin 


141 


199 


340 


177 


52.1% 


163 


53 


65 


118 


66 


55.9% 


52 


Tyrrell 


10 


34 


44 


31 


70.5% 


13 


4 


24 


28 


13 


46.4% 


15 


Washington 


39 


178 


217 


162 


74.7% 


55 


27 


55 


82 


47 


57.3% 


35 


District Totals 


417 


980 


1,397 


879 


62.9% 


518 


242 


352 


594 


292 


49.2% 


302 


District 3 


























Carteret 


175 


581 


756 


510 


67.5% 


246 


147 


362 


509 


388 


76.2% 


121 


Craven 


375 


906 


1,281 


951 


74.2% 


330 


231 


695 


926 


709 


76.6% 


217 


Pamlico 


28 


95 


123 


86 


69.9% 


37 


12 


39 


51 


35 


68.6% 


16 


Pitt 


347 


1,096 


1,443 


1,169 


81.0% 


274 


256 


819 


1,075 


758 


70.5% 


317 


District Totals 


925 


2,678 


3,603 


2,716 


75.4% 


887 


646 


1,915 


2,561 


1,890 


73.8% 


671 


District 4 


























Duplin 


146 


500 


646 


470 


72.8% 


176 


123 


181 


304 


173 


56.9% 


131 


Jones 


36 


112 


148 


98 


66.2% 


50 


25 


26 


51 


26 


51.0% 


25 


Onslow 


985 


1,881 


2,866 


1,637 


57.1% 


1,229 


757 


827 


1,584 


714 


45.1% 


870 


Sampson 


134 


583 


717 


581 


81.0% 


136 


90 


291 


381 


269 


70.6% 


112 



District Totals 1,301 3,076 4,377 2,786 



63.7% 1,591 



995 



1,325 2,320 1,182 



50.9% 1,138 



District 5 
New Hanover 

Pender 



616 1,661 2,277 1,651 
94 361 455 344 



72.5% 626 1,133 1,747 2,880 1,795 62.3% 1,085 

75.6% 111 130 190 320 214 66.9% 106 



District Totals 



710 



2,022 2,732 1,995 



73.0% 737 



1,263 1,937 3,200 2,009 



62.8% 1,191 



District 6A 
Halifax 



266 



748 1,014 



756 



74.6% 258 



92 



218 



310 



212 



68.4% 



98 



District 6B 

Bertie 
Hertford 

Northampton 

District Totals 



62 

105 

59 

226 



293 
390 

284 



355 
495 

343 



967 1,193 



247 
350 
238 

835 



69.6% 108 
70.7% 145 
69.4% 105 

70.0% 358 
186 



59 


X7 


146 


89 


61.0% 


57 


51 


95 


146 


98 


67.1% 


48 


50 


X7 


137 


90 


65.7% 


47 



160 



269 



429 



277 



64.6% 



152 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON- MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 



Domestic Relations 



Begin End Begin Knd 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/89 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/90 7/1/89 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/90 

199 817 },016 800 

306 1,091 1,397 1,002 

182 635 817 641 



78.7% 


216 


168 


328 


496 


350 


70.6% 


146 


71.7% 


395 


345 


664 


1,009 


656 


65.0% 


353 


78.5% 


176 


274 


392 


666 


408 


61.3% 


258 



District Totals 



687 2,543 3,230 2,443 



75.6% 



787 



787 1,384 2,171 1,414 



65.1% 



757 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



26 133 159 117 73.6% 42 37 66 103 74 71.8% 29 

265 619 884 658 74.4% 226 252 485 737 508 68.9% 229 

578 1,248 1,826 1,162 63.6% 664 552 963 1,515 739 48.8% 776 



District Totals 



869 2,000 2,869 1,937 



67.5% 



932 



841 



1,514 2,355 1,321 



56.1% 1,034 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



109 
98 
98 

141 
69 



437 
353 
337 
508 
229 



546 
451 
435 
649 
298 



407 
318 
328 
464 
216 



74.5% 
70.5% 
75.4% 
71.5% 

72.5% 



139 
133 
107 
185 
82 



127 
70 
96 

174 
59 



178 
200 
137 
292 
84 



305 
270 
233 
466 
143 



207 
188 
177 
275 
92 



67.9% 
69.6% 
76.0% 
59.0% 
64.3% 



98 

82 

56 

191 

51 



District Totals 



515 



1,864 2,379 1,733 



72.8% 



646 



526 



891 



1,417 



939 



66.3% 



478 



District 10 

Wake 



3,710 4,297 8,007 3,684 



46.0% 4,323 4,805 7,350 12,155 6,040 



49.7% 6,115 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 



234 824 1,058 800 

306 1,134 1,440 1,104 
202 562 764 508 



75.6% 


258 


76.7% 


336 


66.5% 


256 



428 620 1,048 686 

379 698 1,077 686 

301 694 995 602 



65.5% 


362 


63.7% 


391 


60.5% 


393 



District Totals 



742 2,520 3,262 2,412 



73.9% 



850 



1,108 2,012 3,120 1,974 



63.3% 1,146 



District 12 

Cumberland 

District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 



2,170 5,028 7,198 4,816 



65 339 404 331 
321 602 923 576 
396 701 1,097 732 



66.9% 


2,382 


761 


1,964 


2,725 


1,993 


73.1% 


732 


81.9% 


73 


109 


323 


432 


267 


61.8% 


165 


62.4% 


347 


521 


427 


948 


575 


60.7% 


373 


66.7% 


365 


409 


364 


773 


434 


56.1% 


339 



District Totals 



782 



1,642 2,424 1,639 



67.6% 



785 



1,039 



1,114 2,153 1,276 



59.3% 



877 



District 14 

Durham 



1,325 2,110 3,435 1,845 



53.7% 1,590 



1,161 2,114 3,275 1,991 



60.8% 1,284 



District ISA 

Alamance 



420 1,300 1,720 1,297 



75.4% 423 



561 895 1,456 866 



59.5% 



590 



187 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 

CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 

General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 



Domestic Relations 



Begin End Begin Knd 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/89 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/90 7/1/89 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/90 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 


121 

258 


383 
723 


504 
981 


365 
582 


72.4% 
59.3% 


139 
399 


97 
295 


151 
560 


248 
855 


164 
412 


66.1% 

48.2% 


84 
443 


District Totals 


379 


1,106 


1,485 


947 


63.8% 


538 


392 


711 


1,103 


576 


52.2% 


527 


District 16A 

Hoke 

Scotland 


67 

150 


369 
516 


436 
666 


335 
506 


76.8% 
76.0% 


101 
160 


54 
147 


92 
259 


146 
406 


99 
268 


67.8% 
66.0% 


47 
138 


District Totals 


217 


885 


1,102 


841 


76.3% 


261 


201 


351 


552 


367 


66.5% 


185 


District 16B 

Robeson 


426 


1,451 


1,877 


1,245 


66.3% 


632 


468 


840 


1,308 


655 


50.1% 


653 


District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 


48 
229 


169 
905 


217 
1,134 


151 
856 


69.6% 
75.5% 


66 
278 


33 
322 


65 
578 


98 
900 


64 
686 


65.3% 
76.2% 


34 
214 


District Totals 


277 


1,074 


1,351 


1,007 


74.5% 


344 


355 


643 


998 


750 


75.2% 


248 


District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 


84 
195 


272 
635 


356 
830 


247 
575 


69.4% 
69.3% 


109 
255 


69 
155 


102 
357 


171 
512 


84 
290 


49.1% 
56.6% 


87 
222 


District Totals 


279 


907 


1,186 


822 


69.3% 


364 


224 


459 


683 


374 


54.8% 


309 


District 18 

Guilford 


2,876 


4,354 


7,230 


3,843 


53.2% 


3,387 


4,203 


5,160 


9,363 


4,548 


48.6% 


4,815 


District 19A 

Cabarrus 


308 


1,158 


1,466 


1,228 


83.8% 


238 


502 


1,091 


1,593 


1,279 


80.3% 


314 


District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 


152 
295 


294 
871 


446 
1,166 


232 
845 


52.0% 
72.5% 


214 
321 


207 
189 


249 
580 


456 
769 


242 
552 


53.1% 
71.8% 


214 

217 


District Totals 


447 


1,165 


1,612 


1,077 


66.8% 


535 


396 


829 


1,225 


794 


64.8% 


431 


District 19C 

Rowan 


294 


1,130 


1,424 


1,084 


76.1% 


340 


495 


577 


1,072 


683 


63.7% 


389 


District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


218 
333 
328 
283 
298 


234 
512 
627 
468 
781 


452 
845 
955 
751 
1,079 


274 
573 
635 
410 
765 


60.6% 
67.8% 
66.5% 
54.6% 
70.9% 


178 
272 
320 
341 
314 


143 
524 
301 
428 
476 


111 

431 
399 
237 
440 


254 
955 
700 
665 
916 


97 
583 
436 
199 
487 


38.2% 
61.0% 
62.3% 
29.9% 
53.2% 


157 
372 
264 
466 
429 


District Totals 


1,460 


2,622 


4,082 


2,657 


65.1% 


1,425 


1,872 


1,618 


3,490 


1,802 


51.6% 


1,688 



188 



District 21 

Forsyth 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 



Domestic Relations 



Begin End Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/89 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/90 7/1/89 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/90 



1,157 2,909 4,066 2,874 



70.7% 1,192 



1,499 3,595 5,094 3,082 



60.5% 2,012 



District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 



59 
556 

63 
311 



266 
1,059 

259 
1,052 



325 
1,615 

322 
1,363 



235 

1,009 

240 

972 



72.3% 
62.5% 
74.5% 
71.3% 



90 
606 

82 
391 



33 
417 

71 
360 



67 100 

583 1,000 

155 226 

700 1,060 



67 
600 
126 
591 



67.0% 
60.0% 
55.8% 
55.8% 



33 
400 
100 
469 



District Totals 



989 



2,636 3,625 2,456 



67.8% 1,169 



881 



1,505 2,386 1,384 



58.0% 1,002 



District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 



42 

68 

116 

93 



111 
192 
633 
249 



153 
260 
749 
342 



118 
193 
622 
236 



77.1% 
74.2% 
83.0% 
69.0% 



35 

67 

127 

106 



22 

52 

317 

93 



35 

77 

1,065 

161 



57 

129 

1,382 

254 



37 

83 

1,018 

127 



64.9% 

64.3% 
73.7% 
50.0% 



20 

46 

364 

127 



District Totals 



319 1,185 1,504 1,169 



77.7% 



335 



484 



1,338 1,822 1,265 



69.4% 



557 



District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



66 
67 
56 
127 
42 



120 
135 
131 
273 
139 



186 

202 
187 
400 
181 



100 
128 
107 
278 
127 



53.8% 
63.4% 
57.2% 
69.5% 
70.2% 



86 
74 
80 
122 
54 



60 
16 
53 
149 
29 



119 

36 

129 

345 

40 



179 

52 

182 

494 

69 



108 

28 

123 

289 

49 



60.3% 
53.8% 
67.6% 
58.5% 
71.0% 



71 
24 
59 
205 
20 



District Totals 



358 



798 1,156 



740 



64.0% 



416 



307 



669 



976 



597 



61.2% 



379 



District 25 
Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 



247 878 1,125 852 75.7% 273 

239 808 1,047 779 74.4% 268 

452 1,590 2,042 1,493 73.1% 549 



221 639 860 599 

293 455 748 564 

380 1,015 1,395 862 



69.7% 


261 


75.4% 


184 


61.8% 


533 



District Totals 



938 3,276 4,214 3,124 



74.1% 1,090 



894 2,109 3,003 2,025 



67.4% 



978 



District 26 

Mecklenburg 



2,483 5,729 8,212 5,434 



66.2% 2,778 



6,240 9,922 16,162 9,749 



60.3% 6,413 



District 27A 

Gaston 



798 2,376 3,174 2,515 79.2% 659 504 1,184 1,688 1,157 68.5% 531 



District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 

Buncombe 



230 1,290 1,520 1,210 
78 576 654 527 

308 1,866 2,174 1,737 



918 2,162 3,080 2,078 



79.6% 


310 


135 


505 


640 


448 


70.0% 


192 


80.6% 


127 


83 


243 


326 


259 


79.4% 


67 


79.9% 


437 


218 


748 


966 


707 


73.2% 


259 


67.5% 


1,002 


706 


1,747 


2,453 


1,678 


68.4% 


775 



189 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 











July 


1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 
















Domestic 


Relations 






General Civil and Magistrate App 


eals/Transfers 




Begin 










End 


Begin 










Knd 




Pending 




Total 


% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 


% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filings 


Caseload 


Disposed Disposed 


6/30/90 


7/1/89 


Filings 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 29 


























Henderson 


268 


693 


961 


606 


63.1% 


355 


276 


572 


848 


544 


64.2% 


304 


McDowell 


110 


459 


569 


381 


67.0% 


188 


53 


221 


274 


187 


68.2% 


87 


Polk 


23 


0? 


120 


88 


73.3% 


32 


27 


40 


67 


44 


65.7% 


23 


Rutherford 


148 


640 


788 


620 


78.7% 


168 


102 


278 


380 


263 


69.2% 


117 


Transylvania 


125 


236 


361 


258 


71.5% 


103 


57 


145 


202 


131 


64.9% 


71 


District Totals 


674 


2,125 


2,799 


1,953 


69.8% 


846 


515 


1,256 


1,771 


1,169 


66.0% 


602 


District 30 


























Cherokee 


77 


188 


265 


183 


69.1% 


82 


47 


135 


182 


139 


76.4% 


43 


Clay 


1? 


40 


53 


41 


77.4% 


12 


21 


46 


67 


42 


62.7% 


25 


Graham 


21 


65 


86 


65 


75.6% 


21 


17 


48 


65 


44 


67.7% 


21 


Haywood 


196 


497 


693 


460 


66.4% 


233 


201 


305 


506 


308 


60.9% 


198 


Jackson 


81 


255 


336 


228 


67.9% 


108 


89 


159 


248 


173 


69.8% 


75 


Macon 


85 


218 


303 


210 


69.3% 


93 


84 


91 


175 


92 


52.6% 


83 


Swain 


31 


93 


124 


78 


62.9% 


46 


20 


52 


72 


51 


70.8% 


21 


District Totals 


504 


1,356 


1,860 


1,265 


68.0% 


595 


479 


836 


1,315 


849 


64.6% 


466 


State Totals 


31,936 


77,140 


109,076 


72,890 


66.8% 


36,186 


37,308 


63,175 


100,483 


59,850 


59.6% 


40,633 



190 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL 
(NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



Judge's Final Order or 

Judgment Without Trial 

(29,269) 



Clerk (26,230) 



Voluntary Dismissal 

(23,225) 




Other (6,242) 

0.3% Trial by Jury (411) 



Trial by Judge (47,363) 



Most civil cases in the district courts are disposed of by 
judges, either before trial or with a bench (non-jury) 
trial. The "Other" category here includes such actions as 



removal to federal court or an order from another state 
closing a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support 
case. 



191 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Judge's Final 
Order or 







Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 1 


















Camden 


Gen 





3 


3 





1 


4 


11 




Dom 





9 


5 


24 





2 


40 


Chowan 


Gen 





13 


27 





19 


11 


70 




Dom 





94 


12 


84 


1 


3 


194 


Currituck 


Gen 





6 


21 


9 


21 





57 




Dom 





65 


18 


26 





1 


110 


Dare 


Gen 





12 


111 


46 


155 


6 


330 




Dom 





145 


29 


52 





5 


231 


Gates 


Gen 


1 


5 


9 


2 


18 


2 


37 




Dom 





31 


5 


19 








55 


Pasquotank 


Gen 





13 


42 


6 


67 


11 


139 




Dom 





217 


38 


62 





3 


320 


Perquimans 


Gen 





5 


25 





9 


1 


40 




Dom 





46 


9 


14 





2 


71 


District Totals 


Gen 


1 


57 


238 


63 


290 


35 


684 




% of Total 


0.1% 


8.3% 


34.8% 


9.2% 


42.4% 


5.1% 


100.0% 




Dom 





607 


116 


281 


1 


16 


1,021 




% of Total 


0.0% 


59.5% 


11.4% 


27.5% 


0.1% 


1.6% 


100.0% 


District 2 


















Beaufort 


Gen 


2 


9 


42 


12 


86 


1 


152 




Dom 





218 


12 


235 


4 


5 


474 


Hyde 


Gen 





2 


3 


2 


7 





14 




Dom 





16 


2 


16 


1 





35 


Martin 


Gen 





6 


19 


6 


32 


3 


66 




Dom 





112 


11 


43 





11 


177 


Tyrrell 


Gen 





2 


7 


2 


1 


1 


13 




Dom 





2 


1 


27 





1 


31 


Washington 


Gen 





8 


19 


1 


16 


3 


47 




Dom 





65 


10 


83 


1 


3 


162 


District Totals 


Gen 


2 


27 


90 


23 


142 


8 


292 




% of Total 


0.7% 


9.2% 


30.8% 


7.9% 


48.6% 


2.7% 


100.0% 




Dom 





413 


36 


404 


6 


20 


879 




% of Total 


0.0% 


47.0% 


4.1% 


46.0% 


0.7% 


2.3% 


100.0% 



♦General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



192 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Judge's Final 
Order or 
Trial by Trial by Voluntary 
Jury Judge Dismissal W 



District 3 










Carteret 


Gen 


1 


46 


105 




Dom 





359 


27 


Craven 


Gen 


5 


40 


180 




Dom 


1 


541 


36 


Pamlico 


Gen 


1 


5 


9 




Dom 





46 


6 


Pitt 


Gen 


1 


95 


260 




Dom 


2 


1,005 


47 


District Totals 


Gen 


8 


186 


554 




% of Total 


0.4% 


9.8% 


29.3% 




Dom 


3 


1,951 


116 




% of Total 


0.1% 


71.8% 


4.3% 


District 4 










Duplin 


Gen 


1 


24 


51 




Dom 


3 


211 


15 


Jones 


Gen 





6 


6 




Dom 





40 


8 


Onslow 


Gen 





150 


259 




Dom 





1,330 


85 


Sampson 


Gen 


2 


29 


106 




Dom 





260 


50 


District Totals 


Gen 


3 


209 


422 




% of Total 


0.3% 


17.7% 


35.7% 




Dom 


3 


1,841 


158 




% of Total 


0.1% 


66.1% 


5.7% 


District 5 










New Hanover 


Gen 


10 


219 


592 




Dom 


2 


928 


130 


Pender 


Gen 


2 


28 


76 




Dom 





123 


25 


District Totals 


Gen 


12 


247 


668 




% of Total 


0.6% 


12.3% 


33.3% 




Dom 


2 


1,051 


155 




% of Total 


0.1% 


52.7% 


7.8% 


District 6A 










Halifax 


Gen 


3 


39 


59 




% of Total 


1.4% 


18.4% 


27.8% 




Dom 


1 


254 


23 




% of Total 


0.1% 


33.6% 


3.0% 



;ment 






Total 


ut Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


108 


121 


7 


388 


95 


1 


28 


510 


95 


296 


93 


709 


225 


1 


147 


951 


3 


12 


5 


35 


32 





2 


86 


9 


277 


116 


758 


17 





98 


1,169 


215 


706 


221 


1,890 


11.4% 


37.4% 


11.7% 


100.0% 


369 


2 


275 


2,716 


13.6% 


0.1% 


10.1% 


100.0% 


20 


68 


9 


173 


213 





28 


470 


8 


3 


3 


26 


39 





11 


98 


30 


241 


34 


714 


143 


2 


77 


1,637 


11 


109 


12 


269 


248 


2 


21 


581 


69 


421 


58 


1,182 


5.8% 


35.6% 


4.9% 


100.0% 


643 


4 


137 


2,786 


23.1% 


0.1% 


4.9% 


100.0% 


324 


585 


55 


1,795 


532 


5 


54 


1,651 


31 


52 


25 


214 


173 


6 


17 


344 


355 


637 


90 


2,009 


17.7% 


31.7% 


4.5% 


100.0% 


705 


11 


71 


1,995 


35.3% 


0.6% 


3.6% 


100.0% 


28 


80 


3 


212 


13.2% 


37.7% 


1.4% 


100.0% 


470 





8 


756 


62.2% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 



♦General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



193 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Judge's Final 













Order or 












Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 6B 


















Bertie 


Gen 





10 


35 





42 


2 


89 




Dom 


1 


77 


9 


159 


1 





247 


Hertford 


Gen 





15 


25 


3 


35 


20 


98 




Dom 





163 


13 


138 


1 


35 


350 


Northampton 


Gen 





11 


28 


11 


35 


5 


90 




Dom 





60 


4 


169 


1 


4 


238 


District Totals 


Gen 





36 


88 


14 


112 


27 


277 




% of Total 


0.0% 


13.0% 


31.8% 


5.1% 


40.4% 


9.7% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


300 


26 


466 


3 


39 


835 




% of Total 


0.1% 


35.9% 


3.1% 


55.8% 


0.4% 


4.7% 


100.0% 


District 7 


















Edgecombe 


Gen 


2 


32 


66 


27 


168 


55 


350 




Dom 


1 


329 


41 


381 


3 


45 


800 


Nash 


Gen 


1 


69 


163 


112 


309 


2 


656 




Dom 





524 


26 


443 


5 


4 


1,002 


Wilson 


Gen 


5 


41 


112 


56 


185 


9 


408 




Dom 





502 


36 


94 


3 


6 


641 


District Totals 


Gen 


8 


142 


341 


195 


662 


66 


1,414 




% of Total 


0.6% 


10.0% 


24.1% 


13.8% 


46.8% 


4.7% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,355 


103 


918 


11 


55 


2,443 




% of Total 


0.0% 


55.5% 


4.2% 


37.6% 


0.5% 


2.3% 


100.0% 


District 8 


















Greene 


Gen 





24 


15 


10 


22 


3 


74 




Dom 





46 


6 


59 





6 


117 


Lenoir 


Gen 


15 


60 


161 


73 


193 


6 


508 




Dom 





393 


70 


188 


1 


6 


658 


Wayne 


Gen 


7 


72 


276 


32 


314 


38 


739 




Dom 


1 


666 


147 


326 


6 


16 


1,162 


District Totals 


Gen 


22 


156 


452 


115 


529 


47 


1,321 




% of Total 


1.7% 


11.8% 


34.2% 


8.7% 


40.0% 


3.6% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,105 


223 


573 


7 


28 


1,937 




% of Total 


0.1% 


57.0% 


11.5% 


29.6% 


0.4% 


1.4% 


100.0% 



♦General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



194 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Judge's Final 
Order or 







Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 9 


















Franklin 


Gen 


1 


22 


72 


18 


82 


12 


207 




Dom 





135 


40 


220 


4 


8 


407 


Granville 


Gen 


5 


14 


54 


17 


77 


21 


188 




Dom 





125 


12 


152 





29 


318 


Person 


Gen 


1 


21 


78 


4 


56 


17 


177 




Dom 


1 


220 


36 


50 





21 


328 


Vance 


Gen 





48 


78 


18 


107 


24 


275 




Dom 





215 


23 


196 


1 


29 


464 


Warren 


Gen 


3 


17 


20 


20 


30 


2 


92 




Dom 





83 


19 


113 





1 


216 


District Totals 


Gen 


10 


122 


302 


77 


352 


76 


939 




% of Total 


1.1% 


13.0% 


32.2% 


8.2% 


37.5% 


8.1% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


778 


130 


731 


5 


88 


1,733 




% of Total 


0.1% 


44.9% 


7.5% 


42.2% 


0.3% 


5.1% 


100.0% 


District 10 


















Wake 


Gen 


13 


21 


1,595 


1,148 


3,019 


244 


6,040 




% of Total 


0.2% 


0.3% 


26.4% 


19.0% 


50.0% 


4.0% 


100.0% 




Dom 





2,060 


171 


1,116 


5 


332 


3,684 




% of Total 


0.0% 


55.9% 


4.6% 


30.3% 


0.1% 


9.0% 


100.0% 


District 11 


















Harnett 


Gen 


8 


50 


354 


109 


163 


2 


686 




Dom 





354 


74 


352 


5 


15 


800 


Johnston 


Gen 


9 


25 


286 


117 


210 


39 


686 




Dom 


2 


449 


102 


523 


3 


25 


1,104 


Lee 


Gen 


3 


52 


176 


33 


335 


3 


602 




Dom 





307 


58 


134 


1 


8 


508 


District Totals 


Gen 


20 


127 


816 


259 


708 


44 


1,974 




% of Total 


1.0% 


6.4% 


41.3% 


13.1% 


35.9% 


2.2% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


1,110 


234 


1,009 


9 


48 


2,412 




% of Total 


0.1% 


46.0% 


9.7% 


41.8% 


0.4% 


2.0% 


100.0% 


District 12 


















Cumberland 


Gen 


7 


306 


449 


147 


761 


323 


1,993 




% of Total 


0.4% 


15.4% 


22.5% 


7.4% 


38.2% 


16.2% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


2,880 


406 


1,196 


3 


330 


4,816 




% of Total 


0.0% 


59.8% 


8.4% 


24.8% 


0.1% 


6.9% 


100.0% 



♦General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



195 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Judge's Final 
Order or 
Trial by Trial by Voluntary 
Jury Judge Dismissal W 



District 13 










Bladen 


Gen 


3 


26 


78 




Dom 





157 


20 


Brunswick 


Gen 


1 


109 


216 




Dom 





304 


73 


Columbus 


Gen 


18 


81 


154 




Dom 





368 


106 


District Totals 


Gen 


22 


216 


448 




% of Total 


1.7% 


16.9% 


35.1% 




Dom 





829 


199 




% of Total 


0.0% 


50.6% 


12.1% 


District 14 










Durham 


Gen 


6 


59 


507 




% of Total 


0.3% 


3.0% 


25.5% 




Dom 





1,022 


98 




% of Total 


0.0% 


55.4% 


5.3% 


District 15A 










Alamance 


Gen 


5 


79 


290 




% of Total 


0.6% 


9.1% 


33.5% 




Dom 





822 


95 




% of Total 


0.0% 


63.4% 


7.3% 


District 15B 










Chatham 


Gen 


2 


9 


72 




Dom 





152 


29 


Orange 


Gen 


2 


91 


150 




Dom 





382 


32 


District Totals 


Gen 


4 


100 


222 




% of Total 


0.7% 


17.4% 


38.5% 




Dom 





534 


61 




% of Total 


0.0% 


56.4% 


6.4% 


District 16A 










Hoke 


Gen 





16 


31 




Dom 





107 


25 


Scotland 


Gen 


1 


26 


67 




Dom 





207 


37 


District Totals 


Gen 


1 


42 


98 




% of Total 


0.3% 


11.4% 


26.7% 




Dom 





314 


62 




% of Total 


0.0% 


37.3% 


7.4% 



;ment 






Total 


ut Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


29 


116 


15 


267 


145 


1 


8 


331 


32 


166 


51 


575 


170 


1 


28 


576 


43 


116 


22 


434 


234 





24 


732 


104 


398 


88 


1,276 


8.2% 


31.2% 


6.9% 


100.0% 


549 


2 


60 


1,639 


33.5% 


0.1% 


3.7% 


100.0% 


380 


917 


122 


1,991 


19.1% 


46.1% 


6.1% 


100.0% 


653 


2 


70 


1,845 


35.4% 


0.1% 


3.8% 


100.0% 


45 


410 


37 


866 


5.2% 


47.3% 


4.3% 


100.0% 


301 


17 


62 


1,297 


23.2% 


1.3% 


4.8% 


100.0% 


19 


59 


3 


164 


168 


2 


14 


365 


15 


143 


11 


412 


157 


1 


10 


582 


34 


202 


14 


576 


5.9% 


35.1% 


2.4% 


100.0% 


325 


3 


24 


947 


34.3% 


0.3% 


2.5% 


100.0% 


4 


47 


1 


99 


203 








335 


13 


157 


4 


268 


248 


1 


13 


506 


17 


204 


5 


367 


4.6% 


55.6% 


1.4% 


100.0% 


451 


1 


13 


841 


53.6% 


0.1% 


1.5% 


100.0% 



♦General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



196 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Judge's Final 
Order or 
Trial by Trial by Voluntary 
Jury Judge Dismissal W 



District 16B 










Robeson 


Gen 


3 


133 


140 




% of Total 


0.5% 


20.3% 


21.4% 




Dom 


1 


693 


70 




% of Total 


0.1% 


55.7% 


5.6% 


District 17A 










Caswell 


Gen 


1 


7 


20 




Dom 





72 


6 


Rockingham 


Gen 


5 


56 


178 




Dom 





465 


69 


District Totals 


Gen 


6 


63 


198 




% of Total 


0.8% 


8.4% 


26.4% 




Dom 





537 


75 




% of Total 


0.0% 


53.3% 


7.4% 


District 17B 










Stokes 


Gen 





15 


23 




Dom 





140 


13 


Surry 


Gen 


2 


20 


71 




Dom 





327 


31 


District Totals 


Gen 


2 


35 


94 




% of Total 


0.5% 


9.4% 


25.1% 




Dom 





467 


44 




% of Total 


0.0% 


56.8% 


5.4% 


District 18 










Guilford 


Gen 


7 


528 


1,349 




% of Total 


0.2% 


11.6% 


29.7% 




Dom 





2,984 


185 




% of Total 


0.0% 


77.6% 


4.8% 


District 19A 










Cabarrus 


Gen 


6 


71 


408 




% of Total 


0.5% 


5.6% 


31.9% 




Dom 





694 


104 




% of Total 


0.0% 


56.5% 


8.5% 



gment 






Total 


ut Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


7 


365 


7 


655 


1.1% 


55.7% 


1.1% 


100.0% 


450 


7 


24 


1,245 


36.1% 


0.6% 


1.9% 


100.0% 


13 


19 


4 


64 


69 





4 


151 


9 


400 


38 


686 


276 





46 


856 


22 


419 


42 


750 


2.9% 


55.9% 


5.6% 


100.0% 


345 





50 


1,007 


34.3% 


0.0% 


5.0% 


100.0% 


3 


41 


2 


84 


89 





5 


247 


35 


156 


6 


290 


211 


1 


5 


575 


38 


197 


8 


374 


10.2% 


52.7% 


2.1% 


100.0% 


300 


1 


10 


822 


36.5% 


0.1% 


1.2% 


100.0% 


268 


2,114 


282 


4,548 


5.9% 


46.5% 


6.2% 


100.0% 


314 


16 


344 


3,843 


8.2% 


0.4% 


9.0% 


100.0% 


124 


571 


99 


1,279 


9.7% 


44.6% 


7.7% 


100.0% 


362 


1 


67 


1,228 


29.5% 


0.1% 


5.5% 


100.0% 



♦General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



197 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Judge's Final 
Order or 
Trial by Trial by Voluntary 
Jury Judge Dismissal W 



District 19B 










Montgomery 


Gen 





19 


79 




Dom 





219 


11 


Randolph 


Gen 


7 


76 


113 




Dom 





446 


67 


District Totals 


Gen 


7 


95 


192 




% of Total 


0.9% 


12.0% 


24.2% 




Dom 





665 


78 




% of Total 


0.0% 


61.7% 


7.2% 


District 19C 










Rowan 


Gen 


6 


53 


273 




% of Total 


0.9% 


7.8% 


40.0% 




Dom 





559 


99 




% of Total 


0.0% 


51.6% 


9.1% 


District 20 










Anson 


Gen 


6 


8 


33 




Dom 





114 


30 


Moore 


Gen 


2 


124 


205 




Dom 





345 


81 


Richmond 


Gen 





21 


196 




Dom 


1 


268 


57 


Stanly 


Gen 





30 


64 




Dom 





249 


8 


Union 


Gen 


12 


69 


188 




Dom 


1 


491 


35 


District Totals 


Gen 


20 


252 


686 




% of Total 


1.1% 


14.0% 


38.1% 




Dom 


2 


1,467 


211 




% of Total 


0.1% 


55.2% 


7.9% 


District 21 










Forsyth 


Gen 


14 


173 


900 




% of Total 


0.5% 


5.6% 


29.2% 




Dom 


6 


1,912 


181 




% of Total 


0.2% 


66.5% 


6.3% 



»ment 






Total 


ut Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 





144 





242 








2 


232 


28 


307 


21 


552 


249 


1 


82 


845 


28 


451 


21 


794 


3.5% 


56.8% 


2.6% 


100.0% 


249 


1 


84 


1,077 


23.1% 


0.1% 


7.8% 


100.0% 


51 


271 


29 


683 


7.5% 


39.7% 


4.2% 


100.0% 


389 


5 


32 


1,084 


35.9% 


0.5% 


3.0% 


100.0% 


11 


39 





97 


125 


3 


2 


274 


56 


164 


32 


583 


129 


1 


17 


573 


17 


168 


34 


436 


251 


9 


49 


635 


46 


57 


2 


199 


153 








410 


38 


179 


1 


487 


234 


4 





765 


168 


607 


69 


1,802 


9.3% 


33.7% 


3.8% 


100.0% 


892 


17 


68 


2,657 


33.6% 


0.6% 


2.6% 


100.0% 


326 


1,372 


297 


3,082 


10.6% 


44.5% 


9.6% 


100.0% 


640 


3 


132 


2,874 


22.3% 


0.1% 


4.6% 


100.0% 



♦General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



198 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Judge's Final 
Order or 







Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 22 


















Alexander 


Gen 


1 


6 


15 


8 


31 


6 


67 




Dom 





114 


11 


103 


1 


6 


235 


Davidson 


Gen 


4 


77 


177 


34 


290 


18 


600 




Dom 


3 


513 


66 


392 


4 


31 


1,009 


Davie 


Gen 


1 


40 


41 


3 


38 


3 


126 




Dom 





169 


20 


35 


1 


15 


240 


Iredell 


Gen 


6 


52 


214 


36 


253 


30 


591 




Dom 





438 


56 


425 


2 


51 


972 


District Totals 


Gen 


12 


175 


447 


81 


612 


57 


1,384 




% of Total 


0.9% 


12.6% 


32.3% 


5.9% 


44.2% 


4.1% 


100.0% 




Dom 


3 


1,234 


153 


955 


8 


103 


2,456 




% of Total 


0.1% 


50.2% 


6.2% 


38.9% 


0.3% 


4.2% 


100.0% 


District 23 


















Alleghany 


Gen 





10 


15 


2 


8 


2 


37 




Dom 





73 


14 


28 


1 


2 


118 


Ashe 


Gen 


4 


13 


24 


9 


31 


2 


83 




Dom 





127 


21 


39 





6 


193 


Wilkes 


Gen 


2 


143 


136 


5 


716 


16 


1,018 




Dom 





446 


50 


105 


3 


18 


622 


Yadkin 


Gen 


1 


18 


39 


16 


50 


3 


127 




Dom 


2 


122 


10 


96 


2 


4 


236 


District Totals 


Gen 


7 


184 


214 


32 


805 


23 


1,265 




% of Total 


0.6% 


14.5% 


16.9% 


2.5% 


63.6% 


1.8% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


768 


95 


268 


6 


30 


1,169 




% of Total 


0.2% 


65.7% 


8.1% 


22.9% 


0.5% 


2.6% 


100.0% 


District 24 


















Avery 


Gen 





18 


38 


11 


36 


5 


108 




Dom 





61 


9 


24 





6 


100 


Madison 


Gen 





2 


8 


5 


10 


3 


28 




Dom 





70 


13 


32 





13 


128 


Mitchell 


Gen 


1 


13 


27 


12 


68 


2 


123 




Dom 





64 


10 


31 





2 


107 


Watauga 


Gen 


1 


33 


132 


26 


86 


11 


289 




Dom 





162 


37 


65 


1 


13 


278 


Yancey 


Gen 


2 


14 


11 


5 


14 


3 


49 




Dom 





81 


15 


26 





5 


127 


District Totals 


Gen 


4 


80 


216 


59 


214 


24 


597 




% of Total 


0.7% 


13.4% 


36.2% 


9.9% 


35.8% 


4.0% 


100.0% 




Dom 





438 


84 


178 


1 


39 


740 




% of Total 


0.0% 


59.2% 


11.4% 


24.1% 


0.1% 


5.3% 


100.0% 



♦General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



199 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 







o 


UIJ A, A^ 


07 " JU1I 


Judge's Final 
Order or 












Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 25 


















Burke 


Gen 


1 


66 


192 


55 


242 


43 


599 




Dom 


1 


470 


75 


278 


1 


27 


852 


Caldwell 


Gen 


6 


35 


179 


78 


247 


19 


564 




Dom 





507 


29 


204 





39 


779 


Catawba 


Gen 


9 


52 


212 


119 


429 


41 


862 




Dom 





804 


92 


576 


3 


18 


1,493 


District Totals 


Gen 


16 


153 


583 


252 


918 


103 


2,025 




% of Total 


0.8% 


7.6% 


28.8% 


12.4% 


45.3% 


5.1% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,781 


196 


1,058 


4 


84 


3,124 




% of Total 


0.0% 


57.0% 


6.3% 


33.9% 


0.1% 


2.7% 


100.0% 


District 26 


















Mecklenburg 


Gen 


47 


1,125 


3,271 


1,007 


4,275 


24 


9,749 




% of Total 


0.5% 


11.5% 


33.6% 


10.3% 


43.9% 


0.2% 


100.0% 




Dom 


3 


3,622 


378 


1,394 


18 


19 


5,434 




% of Total 


0.1% 


66.7% 


7.0% 


25.7% 


0.3% 


0.3% 


100.0% 


District 27A 


















Gaston 


Gen 


10 


107 


278 


137 


553 


72 


1,157 




% of Total 


0.9% 


9.2% 


24.0% 


11.8% 


47.8% 


6.2% 


100.0% 




Dom 





1,421 


124 


697 


4 


269 


2,515 




% of Total 


0.0% 


56.5% 


4.9% 


27.7% 


0.2% 


10.7% 


100.0% 


District 27B 


















Cleveland 


Gen 


8 


59 


106 


49 


194 


32 


448 




Dom 


4 


710 


71 


366 


1 


58 


1,210 


Lincoln 


Gen 


3 


32 


66 


39 


116 


3 


259 




Dom 


1 


277 


29 


212 


2 


6 


527 j 


District Totals 


Gen 


11 


91 


172 


88 


310 


35 


707 




% of Total 


1.6% 


12.9% 


24.3% 


12.4% 


43.8% 


5.0% 


100.0% 




Dom 


5 


987 


100 


578 


3 


64 


1,737 




% of Total 


0.3% 


56.8% 


5.8% 


33.3% 


0.2% 


3.7% 


100.0% 


District 28 


















Buncombe 


Gen 


15 


44 


565 


320 


593 


141 


1,678 




% of Total 


0.9% 


2.6% 


33.7% 


19.1% 


35.3% 


8.4% 


100.0% 




Dom 





52 


246 


1,638 


25 


117 


2,078 




% of Total 


0.0% 


2.5% 


11.8% 


78.8% 


1.2% 


5.6% 


100.0% 



♦General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



200 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 







July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 


















Judge's Final 


















Order or 












Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 29 


















Henderson 


Gen 


3 


32 


127 


110 


237 


35 


544 




Dom 





400 


30 


165 





11 


606 


McDowell 


Gen 





22 


42 


2 


105 


16 


187 




Dom 





348 


23 


1 


2 


7 


381 


Polk 


Gen 


2 


13 


10 


4 


2 


13 


44 




Dom 


8 


61 


10 


7 


2 





88 


Rutherford 


Gen 


2 


67 


56 


5 


112 


21 


263 




Dom 


1 


427 


24 


157 


1 


10 


620 


Transylvania 


Gen 


1 


8 


48 


57 


11 


6 


131 




Dom 





133 


32 


80 





13 


258 


District Totals 


Gen 


8 


142 


283 


178 


467 


91 


1,169 




% of Total 


0.7% 


12.1% 


24.2% 


15.2% 


39.9% 


7.8% 


100.0% 




Dom 


9 


1,369 


119 


410 


5 


41 


1,953 




% of Total 


0.5% 


70.1% 


6.1% 


21.0% 


0.3% 


2.1% 


100.0% 


District 30 


















Cherokee 


Gen 





13 


26 


17 


79 


4 


139 




Dom 





115 


12 


53 





3 


183 


Clay 


Gen 





1 


11 


6 


22 


2 


42 




Dom 





8 


4 


26 





3 


41 


Graham 


Gen 





5 


13 


8 


18 





44 




Dom 





55 


4 


4 


1 


1 


65 


Haywood 


Gen 


7 


67 


88 


19 


119 


8 


308 




Dom 





331 


45 


76 


2 


6 


460 


Jackson 


Gen 


2 


2 


65 


27 


69 


8 


173 




Dom 





10 


21 


186 


7 


4 


228 


Macon 


Gen 


2 


25 


28 


11 


17 


9 


92 




Dom 





120 


21 


61 





8 


210 


Swain 


Gen 


4 


6 


17 


9 


15 





51 




Dom 





54 


8 


15 





1 


78 


District Totals 


Gen 


15 


119 


248 


97 


339 


31 


849 




% of Total 


1.8% 


14.0% 


29.2% 


11.4% 


39.9% 


3.7% 


100.0% 




Dom 





693 


115 


421 


10 


26 


1,265 




% of Total 


0.0% 


54.8% 


9.1% 


33.3% 


0.8% 


2.1% 


100.0% 


State Totals 


Gen 


363 


5,794 


18,156 


6,571 


26,003 


2,963 


59,850 




% of Total 


0.6% 


9.7% 


30.3% 


11.0% 


43.4% 


5.0% 


100.0% 




Dom 


48 


41,569 


5,069 


22,698 


227 


3,279 


72,890 




% of Total 


0.1% 


57.0% 


7.0% 


31.1% 


0.3% 


4.5% 


100.0% 



♦General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



201 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 





<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Pending 


Age (Days) Age (Day 


District 1 




















Camden 





40.0% 


3 


20.0% 


6 


40.0% 


15 


386.0 


253.0 


Chowan 


Ab 


65.7% 


11 


15.7% 


13 


18.6% 


70 


220.9 


80.5 


Currituck 


31 


47.0% 


15 


22.7% 


20 


30.3% 


66 


304.1 


214.0 


Dare 


bb 


57.9% 


18 


15.8% 


30 


26.3% 


114 


282.9 


133.5 


Gates 


20 


58.8% 


6 


17.6% 


8 


23.5% 


34 


255.7 


133.0 


Pasquotank 


79 


51.0% 


31 


20.0% 


45 


29.0% 


155 


293.7 


170.0 


Perquimans 


28 


34.1% 


7 


8.5% 


47 


57.3% 


82 


699.1 


400.0 


District Totals 


276 


51.5% 


91 


17.0% 


169 


31.5% 


536 


345.4 


169.0 


District 2 




















Beaufort 


94 


37.2% 


32 


12.6% 


127 


50.2% 


253 


505.8 


373.0 


Hyde 


11 


32.4% 


7 


20.6% 


16 


47.1% 


34 


395.4 


299.0 


Martin 


39 


23.9% 


40 


24.5% 


84 


51.5% 


163 


558.6 


383.0 


Tyrrell 


9 


69.2% 


2 


15.4% 


2 


15.4% 


13 


206.6 


93.0 


Washington 


39 


70.9% 


9 


16.4% 


7 


12.7% 


55 


199.6 


96.0 


District Totals 


192 


37.1% 


90 


17.4% 


236 


45.6% 


518 


475.2 


330.0 


District 3 




















Carteret 


138 


56.1% 


59 


24.0% 


49 


19.9% 


246 


207.8 


131.5 


Craven 


205 


62.1% 


73 


22.1% 


52 


15.8% 


330 


191.8 


108.5 


Pamlico 


23 


62.2% 


4 


10.8% 


10 


27.0% 


37 


236.3 


142.0 


Pitt 


185 


67.5% 


48 


17.5% 


41 


15.0% 


274 


166.0 


108.5 


District Totals 


551 


62.1% 


184 


20.7% 


152 


17.1% 


887 


190.1 


117.0 


District 4 




















Duplin 


123 


69.9% 


32 


18.2% 


21 


11.9% 


176 


154.5 


91.0 


Jones 


34 


68.0% 


8 


16.0% 


8 


16.0% 


50 


190.6 


66.0 


Onslow 


545 


44.3% 


151 


12.3% 


533 


43.4% 


1,229 


399.9 


254.0 


Sampson 


97 


71.3% 


21 


15.4% 


18 


13.2% 


136 


176.3 


80.5 


District Totals 


799 


50.2% 


212 


13.3% 


580 


36.5% 


1,591 


347.1 


178.0 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


316 


50.5% 


164 


26.2% 


146 


23.3% 


626 


226.5 


172.5 


Pender 


66 


59.5% 


29 


26.1% 


16 


14.4% 


111 


201.4 


117.0 


District Totals 


382 


51.8% 


193 


26.2% 


162 


22.0% 


737 


222.7 


164.0 


District 6A 




















Halifax 


183 


70.9% 


34 


13.2% 


41 


15.9% 


258 


166.8 


93.5 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


64 


59.3% 


21 


19.4% 


23 


21.3% 


108 


200.9 


130.5 


Hertford 


102 


70.3% 


20 


13.8% 


23 


15.9% 


145 


170.7 


92.0 


Northampton 


61 


58.1% 


23 


21.9% 


21 


20.0% 


105 


236.6 


127.0 


District Totals 


227 


63.4% 


64 


17.9% 


67 


18.7% 


358 


199.2 


111.5 



202 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



<6 % 

114 52.8% 

242 61.3% 

121 68.8% 



6-12 

63 
65 

30 



29.2% 
16.5% 
17.0% 



>12 



39 



% 



18.1% 
88 22.3% 
25 14.2% 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



216 
395 
176 



271.4 
262.2 
171.9 



170.0 

108.0 

80.5 



District Totals 



477 



60.6% 



158 



20.1% 



152 



19.3% 



787 



244.5 



114.0 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



27 
149 
295 



64.3% 
65.9% 

44.4% 



9 

44 
135 



21.4% 
19.5% 
20.3% 



6 

33 

234 



14.3% 
14.6% 
35.2% 



42 
226 
664 



249.3 
228.0 
311.5 



108.0 

98.5 

243.0 



District Totals 



471 



50.5% 



188 



20.2% 



273 



29.3% 



932 



288.5 



172.0 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



89 
101 

77 
106 

53 



64.0% 
75.9% 
72.0% 
57.3% 
64.6% 



24 
22 
18 
41 
13 



17.3% 
16.5% 
16.8% 
22.2% 
15.9% 



26 
10 
12 
38 
16 



18.7% 
7.5% 
11.2% 
20.5% 
19.5% 



139 
133 
107 
185 
82 



211.5 
163.3 
144.8 
211.4 

208.4 



99.0 

85.0 

74.0 

121.0 

134.5 



District Totals 



426 



65.9% 



118 



18.3% 



102 



15.8% 



646 



190.1 



96.0 



District 10 

Wake 



1,066 



24.7% 



522 



12.1% 



2,735 



63.3% 



4,323 780.6 



618.0 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 



173 
206 
143 



67.1% 
61.3% 
55.9% 



60 
83 
53 



23.3% 
24.7% 
20.7% 



25 
47 
60 



9.7% 
14.0% 

23.4% 



258 
336 
256 



150.9 
188.2 
217.9 



95.5 
122.0 
139.0 



District Totals 



522 



61.4% 



196 



23.1% 



132 



15.5% 



850 



185.8 



117.0 



District 12 

Cumberland 



1,238 



52.0% 



465 



19.5% 



679 



28.5% 



2,382 



250.6 



164.5 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 



56 
140 
119 



76.7% 
40.3% 
32.6% 



10 
65 

73 



13.7% 
18.7% 
20.0% 



7 
142 
173 



9.6% 
40.9% 

47.4% 



73 
347 
365 



145.9 
363.2 
453.0 



57.0 
262.0 
325.0 



District Totals 



315 



40.1% 



148 



18.9% 



322 



41.0% 



785 



384.7 



269.0 



District 14 

Durham 



496 



31.2% 



214 



13.5% 



880 



55.3% 



1,590 



541.8 



446.0 



District 15A 

Alamance 



279 



66.0% 



64 



15.1% 



80 



18.9% 



423 



185.6 



94.0 



203 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



<6 



% 



94 67.6% 

168 42.1% 



6-12 



% 



20 14.4% 

83 20.8% 



>12 % 

25 18.0% 

148 37.1% 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



139 170.6 

399 325.7 



122.0 
260.0 



District Totals 



262 48.7% 



103 19.1% 



173 32.2% 



538 285.6 



206.5 



District 16A 

Hoke 
Scotland 



62 
82 



61.4% 
51.3% 



26 
32 



25.7% 
20.0% 



13 
46 



12.9% 
28.8% 



101 
160 



186.7 
300.9 



145.0 
164.0 



District Totals 



144 



55.2% 



58 



22.2% 



59 



22.6% 



261 



256.7 



162.0 



District 16B 

Robeson 



272 



43.0% 



123 



19.5% 



237 



37.5% 



632 



371.9 



246.5 



District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 



37 
193 



56.1% 
69.4% 



13 
58 



19.7% 
20.9% 



16 
27 



24.2% 
9.7% 



66 
278 



235.6 
155.9 



136.5 
93.0 



District Totals 



230 



66.9% 



71 



20.6% 



43 



12.5% 



344 



171.2 



103.5 



District 17B 

Stokes 
Surry 



51 46.8% 25 22.9% 33 30.3% 109 276.7 197.0 

123 48.2% 36 14.1% 96 37.6% 255 385.5 229.0 



District Totals 



174 



47.8% 



61 



16.8% 



129 



35.4% 



364 352.9 



226.0 



District 18 

Guilford 



1,116 



32.9% 



431 12.7% 1,840 54.3% 3,387 631.4 431.0 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 



205 



86.1% 



29 12.2% 



1.7% 



238 91.1 51.0 



District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 



87 40.7% 26 12.1% 101 47.2% 214 535.6 293.0 

204 63.6% 43 13.4% 74 23.1% 321 243.2 110.0 



District Totals 



291 



54.4% 



69 



12.9% 



175 



32.7% 



535 360.1 



155.0 



District 19C 

Rowan 



244 71.8% 



76 



22.4% 



20 



5.9% 



340 



139.4 



66.0 



District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 



40 
106 
141 

98 
138 

523 



22.5% 
39.0% 
44.1% 
28.7% 
43.9% 

36.7% 



17 
47 
38 
32 
83 

217 



9.6% 
17.3% 
11.9% 

9.4% 
26.4% 

15.2% 



121 
119 
141 
211 
93 

685 



68.0% 
43.8% 
44.1% 
61.9% 
29.6% 

48.1% 



178 
272 
320 
341 
314 

1,425 



648.9 
444.9 
385.3 
958.9 
286.5 

545.1 



553.0 
300.0 
262.0 
676.0 
221.5 

337.0 



District 21 

Forsyth 



709 



59.5% 



187 



15.7% 
204 



296 



24.8% 



1,192 238.7 



121.0 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 





<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Pending 


Age (Days) Age (Da] 


District 22 




















Alexander 


44 


48.9% 


23 


25.6% 


23 


25.6% 


90 


289.3 


191.0 


Davidson 


200 


33.0% 


99 


16.3% 


307 


50.7% 


606 


466.6 


370.5 


Davie 


60 


73.2% 


16 


19.5% 


6 


7.3% 


82 


136.1 


79.0 


Iredell 


214 


54.7% 


68 


17.4% 


109 


27.9% 


391 


243.7 


151.0 


District Totals 


518 


44.3% 


206 


17.6% 


445 


38.1% 


1,169 


355.2 


240.0 


District 23 




















Alleghany 


18 


51.4% 


6 


17.1% 


11 


31.4% 


35 


295.8 


170.0 


Ashe 


28 


41.8% 


14 


20.9% 


25 


37.3% 


67 


361.0 


274.0 


Wilkes 


106 


83.5% 


16 


12.6% 


5 


3.9% 


127 


106.5 


46.0 


Yadkin 


49 


46.2% 


17 


16.0% 


40 


37.7% 


106 


326.1 


247.5 


District Totals 


201 


60.0% 


53 


15.8% 


81 


24.2% 


335 


246.6 


127.0 


District 24 




















Avery 


35 


40.7% 


18 


20.9% 


33 


38.4% 


86 


464.1 


317.5 


Madison 


34 


45.9% 


19 


25.7% 


21 


28.4% 


74 


265.5 


226.0 


Mitchell 


43 


53.8% 


10 


12.5% 


27 


33.8% 


80 


420.1 


139.0 


Watauga 


76 


62.3% 


10 


8.2% 


36 


29.5% 


122 


302.8 


123.0 


Yancey 


35 


64.8% 


9 


16.7% 


10 


18.5% 


54 


185.5 


96.5 


District Totals 


223 


53.6% 


66 


15.9% 


127 


30.5% 


416 


336.9 


148.5 


District 25 




















Burke 


184 


67.4% 


51 


18.7% 


38 


13.9% 


273 


159.0 


106.0 


Caldwell 


155 


57.8% 


45 


16.8% 


68 


25.4% 


268 


235.8 


132.0 


Catawba 


337 


61.4% 


126 


23.0% 


86 


15.7% 


549 


199.5 


130.0 


District Totals 


676 


62.0% 


222 


20.4% 


192 


17.6% 


1,090 


198.3 


124.0 


District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


1,597 


57.5% 


525 


18.9% 


656 


23.6% 


2,778 


228.5 


130.5 


District 27A 




















Gaston 


388 


58.9% 


140 


21.2% 


131 


19.9% 


659 


192.8 


113.0 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


255 


82.3% 


52 


16.8% 


3 


1.0% 


310 


95.5 


58.5 


Lincoln 


117 


92.1% 


9 


7.1% 


1 


0.8% 


127 


75.2 


52.0 


District Totals 


372 


85.1% 


61 


14.0% 


4 


0.9% 


437 


89.6 


53.0 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


547 


54.6% 


205 


20.5% 


250 


25.0% 


1,002 


257.2 


151.5 



205 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 





<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Pending 


Age (Days) Age (Daj 


District 29 




















Henderson 


153 


43.1% 


59 


16.6% 


143 


40.3% 


355 


390.9 


261.0 


McDowell 


116 


61.7% 


28 


14.9% 


44 


23.4% 


188 


214.7 


108.5 


Polk 


26 


81.3% 


2 


6.3% 


4 


12.5% 


32 


145.4 


79.0 


Rutherford 


115 


68.5% 


17 


10.1% 


36 


21.4% 


168 


202.0 


84.0 


Transylvania 


60 


58.3% 


6 


5.8% 


37 


35.9% 


103 


400.6 


113.0 


District Totals 


470 


55.6% 


112 


13.2% 


264 


31.2% 


846 


306.1 


136.0 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


41 


50.0% 


11 


13.4% 


30 


36.6% 


82 


501.3 


181.0 


Clay 


8 


66.7% 


2 


16.7% 


2 


16.7% 


12 


140.5 


66.0 


Graham 


12 


57.1% 


4 


19.0% 


5 


23.8% 


21 


278.6 


110.0 


Haywood 


122 


52.4% 


23 


9.9% 


88 


37.8% 


233 


424.2 


152.0 


Jackson 


53 


49.1% 


23 


21.3% 


32 


29.6% 


108 


350.6 


183.5 


Macon 


53 


57.0% 


12 


12.9% 


28 


30.1% 


93 


418.2 


152.0 


Swain 


29 


63.0% 


7 


15.2% 


10 


21.7% 


46 


205.8 


100.5 


District Totals 


318 


53.4% 


82 


13.8% 


195 


32.8% 


595 


392.8 


157.0 


State Totals 


17,380 


48.0% 


6,038 


16.7% 


12,768 


35.3% 


36,186 


384.0 


206.0 



206 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 





<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) Aj 


;e (Da; 


District 1 




















Camden 


28 


70.0% 


6 


15.0% 


6 


15.0% 


40 


201.0 


87.5 


Chowan 


165 


85.1% 


18 


9.3% 


11 


5.7% 


194 


88.9 


39.0 


Currituck 


77 


70.0% 


22 


20.0% 


11 


10.0% 


110 


194.1 


94.5 


Dare 


181 


78.4% 


32 


13.9% 


18 


7.8% 


231 


133.7 


67.0 


Gates 


48 


87.3% 


6 


10.9% 


1 


1.8% 


55 


86.8 


65.0 


Pasquotank 


255 


79.7% 


29 


9.1% 


36 


11.3% 


320 


136.6 


59.0 


Perquimans 


57 


80.3% 


7 


9.9% 


7 


9.9% 


71 


151.5 


75.0 


District Totals 


811 


79.4% 


120 


11.8% 


90 


8.8% 


1,021 


133.9 


63.0 


District 2 




















Beaufort 


427 


90.1% 


30 


6.3% 


17 


3.6% 


474 


66.3 


19.0 


Hyde 


30 


85.7% 


2 


5.7% 


3 


8.6% 


35 


115.2 


49.0 


Martin 


143 


80.8% 


18 


10.2% 


16 


9.0% 


177 


140.5 


55.0 


Tyrrell 


26 


83.9% 


3 


9.7% 


2 


6.5% 


31 


83.0 


9.0 


Washington 


141 


87.0% 


12 


7.4% 


9 


5.6% 


162 


83.9 


16.0 


District Totals 


767 


87.3% 


65 


7.4% 


47 


5.3% 


879 


87.0 


38.0 


District 3 




















Carteret 


432 


84.7% 


51 


10.0% 


27 


5.3% 


510 


98.3 


55.0 


Craven 


709 


74.6% 


105 


11.0% 


137 


14.4% 


951 


146.5 


61.0 


Pamlico 


70 


81.4% 


8 


9.3% 


8 


9.3% 


86 


126.0 


58.0 


Pitt 


988 


84.5% 


91 


7.8% 


90 


7.7% 


1,169 


103.1 


53.0 


District Totals 


2,199 


81.0% 


255 


9.4% 


262 


9.6% 


2,716 


118.1 


56.0 


District 4 




















Duplin 


387 


82.3% 


49 


10.4% 


34 


7.2% 


470 


113.4 


57.0 


Jones 


74 


75.5% 


11 


11.2% 


13 


13.3% 


98 


186.4 


51.0 


Onslow 


1,385 


84.6% 


135 


8.2% 


117 


7.1% 


1,637 


133.7 


57.0 


Sampson 


503 


86.6% 


54 


9.3% 


24 


4.1% 


581 


81.1 


42.0 



District Totals 2,349 



84.3% 



249 



8.9% 



188 



6.7% 



2,786 121.2 



54.0 



District 5 




















New Hanover 


1,315 


79.6% 


99 


6.0% 


237 


14.4% 


1,651 


144.1 


51.0 


Pender 


281 


81.7% 


26 


7.6% 


37 


10.8% 


344 


116.6 


54.0 



District Totals 1,596 



80.0% 



125 



6.3% 



274 



13.7% 



1,995 



139.3 



51.0 



District 6A 




















Halifax 


563 


74.5% 


95 


12.6% 


98 


13.0% 


756 


135.7 


66.5 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


216 


87.4% 


21 


8.5% 


10 


4.0% 


247 


67.2 


8.0 


Hertford 


304 


86.9% 


27 


7.7% 


19 


5.4% 


350 


84.1 


46.0 


Northampton 


216 


90.8% 


13 


5.5% 


9 


3.8% 


238 


63.3 


0.0 


District Totals 


736 


88.1% 


61 


7.3% 


38 


4.6% 


835 


73.1 


36.0 



207 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 





<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) Age (Da 


District 7 




















Edgecombe 


701 


87.6% 


71 


8.9% 


28 


3.5% 


800 


85.6 


45.0 


Nash 


883 


88.1% 


69 


6.9% 


50 


5.0% 


1,002 


83.9 


44.0 


Wilson 


547 


85.3% 


60 


9.4% 


34 


5.3% 


641 


95.8 


50.0 


District Totals 


2,131 


87.2% 


200 


8.2% 


112 


4.6% 


2,443 


87.6 


46.0 


District 8 




















Greene 


100 


85.5% 


11 


9.4% 


6 


5.1% 


117 


91.9 


37.0 


Lenoir 


478 


72.6% 


90 


13.7% 


90 


13.7% 


658 


148.5 


57.5 


Wayne 


943 


81.2% 


114 


9.8% 


105 


9.0% 


1,162 


115.0 


55.0 


District Totals 


1,521 


78.5% 


215 


11.1% 


201 


10.4% 


1,937 


125.0 


55.0 


District 9 




















Franklin 


357 


87.7% 


30 


7.4% 


20 


4.9% 


407 


77.9 


42.0 


Granville 


252 


79.2% 


36 


11.3% 


30 


9.4% 


318 


117.9 


44.0 


Person 


276 


84.1% 


36 


11.0% 


16 


4.9% 


328 


96.7 


48.0 


Vance 


386 


83.2% 


52 


11.2% 


26 


5.6% 


464 


87.9 


40.0 


Warren 


169 


78.2% 


31 


14.4% 


16 


7.4% 


216 


105.3 


42.5 



District Totals 1,440 



83.1% 



185 



10.7% 



108 



6.2% 



1,733 



94.9 



44.0 



District 10 

Wake 3,046 



82.7% 



194 



5.3% 



444 



12.1% 



3,684 



168.0 



46.0 



District 11 

Harnett 644 

Johnston 934 

Lee 416 



80.5% 


61 


7.6% 


95 


11.9% 


800 


121.4 


41.0 


84.6% 


74 


6.7% 


96 


8.7% 


1,104 


96.4 


42.0 


81.9% 


20 


3.9% 


72 


14.2% 


508 


118.8 


48.0 



District Totals 1,994 



82.7% 



155 



6.4% 



263 



10.9% 



2,412 



109.4 



43.0 



District 12 




















Cumberland 


3,786 


78.6% 


493 


10.2% 


537 


11.2% 


4,816 


147.6 


62.0 


District 13 




















Bladen 


287 


86.7% 


22 


6.6% 


22 


6.6% 


331 


102.2 


35.0 


Brunswick 


447 


77.6% 


29 


5.0% 


100 


17.4% 


576 


216.5 


53.0 


Columbus 


562 


76.8% 


46 


6.3% 


124 


16.9% 


732 


201.8 


49.5 



District Totals 1,296 



79.1% 



97 



5.9% 



246 



15.0% 



1,639 



186.9 



48.0 



District 14 

Durham 



1,546 



83.8% 



109 



5.9% 



190 10.3% 1,845 141.4 



47.0 



District 15A 

Alamance 



1,129 



87.0% 



83 



6.4% 



85 6.6% 1,297 108.6 



50.0 



208 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) Total Mean Median 





<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) Age (Daj 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


291 


79.7% 


23 


6.3% 


51 


14.0% 


365 


122.1 


42.0 


Orange 


510 


87.6% 


30 


5.2% 


42 


7.2% 


582 


93.6 


38.0 


District Totals 


801 


84.6% 


53 


5.6% 


93 


9.8% 


947 


104.6 


40.0 


District 16A 




















Hoke 


298 


89.0% 


23 


6.9% 


14 


4.2% 


335 


73.9 


0.0 


Scotland 


444 


87.7% 


24 


4.7% 


38 


7.5% 


506 


98.0 


22.0 


District Totals 


742 


88.2% 


47 


5.6% 


52 


6.2% 


841 


88.4 


6.0 


District 16B 




















Robeson 


1,120 


90.0% 


78 


6.3% 


47 


3.8% 


1,245 


73.7 


34.0 


District 17A 




















Caswell 


133 


88.1% 


13 


8.6% 


5 


3.3% 


151 


75.5 


36.0 


Rockingham 


718 


83.9% 


75 


8.8% 


63 


7.4% 


856 


96.8 


42.0 


District Totals 


851 


84.5% 


88 


8.7% 


68 


6.8% 


1,007 


93.6 


41.0 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


220 


89.1% 


15 


6.1% 


12 


4.9% 


247 


84.9 


49.0 


Surry 


531 


92.3% 


33 


5.7% 


11 


1.9% 


575 


60.4 


40.0 


District Totals 


751 


91.4% 


48 


5.8% 


23 


2.8% 


822 


67.8 


41.0 


District 18 




















Guilford 


3,226 


83.9% 


165 


4.3% 


452 


11.8% 


3,843 


205.0 


52.0 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


1,021 


83.1% 


82 


6.7% 


125 


10.2% 


1,228 


119.8 


44.0 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 


205 


88.4% 


15 


6.5% 


12 


5.2% 


232 


95.2 


44.5 


Randolph 


660 


78.1% 


97 


11.5% 


88 


10.4% 


845 


126.1 


49.0 


District Totals 


865 


80.3% 


112 


10.4% 


100 


9.3% 


1,077 


119.4 


49.0 


District 19C 




















Rowan 


940 


86.7% 


83 


7.7% 


61 


5.6% 


1,084 


87.4 


46.0 


District 20 




















Anson 


223 


81.4% 


26 


9.5% 


25 


9.1% 


274 


136.4 


61.0 


Moore 


404 


70.5% 


32 


5.6% 


137 


23.9% 


573 


333.6 


63.0 


Richmond 


496 


78.1% 


46 


7.2% 


93 


14.6% 


635 


180.8 


52.0 


Stanly 


379 


92.4% 


15 


3.7% 


16 


3.9% 


410 


76.5 


39.0 


Union 


610 


79.7% 


69 


9.0% 


86 


11.2% 


765 


137.8 


43.0 


District Totals 


2,112 


79.5% 


188 


7.1% 


357 


13.4% 


2,657 


180.7 


49.0 


District 21 




















Forsyth 


2,375 


82.6% 


257 


8.9% 


242 


8.4% 


2,874 


129.1 


62.0 



209 



District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



<6 

209 
851 
209 

838 



% 

88.9% 
84.3% 
87.1% 
86.2% 



6-12 

19 

60 
29 
66 



8.1% 

5.9% 

12.1% 

6.8% 



>12 

7 
98 

2 
68 



% 

3.0% 
9.7% 
0.8% 
7.0% 



Total Mean Median 

Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 



235 

1,009 

240 

972 



70.4 

123.6 

77.6 

87.0 



37.0 
43.0 
44.0 
35.0 



District Totals 2,107 85.8% 



174 



7.1% 



175 



7.1' 



2,456 



99.5 



41.0 



District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 



105 
163 
555 
206 



89.0% 
84.5% 
89.2% 

87.3% 



14 
50 
10 



6.8% 
7.3% 
8.0% 

4.2% 



5 
16 

17 
20 



4.2% 
8.3% 
2.7% 
8.5% 



118 
193 
622 
236 



76.8 
114.1 

69.1 
104.3 



42.5 
43.0 
37.0 

43.5 



District Totals 1,029 



88.0% 



82 



7.0% 



58 



5.0% 



1,169 



84.4 



40.0 



District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



69 

97 

92 

217 

114 



69.0% 
75.8% 
86.0% 
78.1% 
89.8% 



17 
9 

9 

34 

4 



17.0% 
7.0% 
8.4% 

12.2% 

3.1% 



14 
22 

6 
27 

9 



14.0% 

17.2% 

5.6% 

9.7% 

7.1% 



100 
128 
107 
278 
127 



171.4 
183.9 
109.1 
139.0 
106.5 



85.5 
76.0 
66.0 
74.5 
70.0 



District Totals 



589 



79.6% 



73 



9.9% 



78 



10.5% 



740 



141.2 



71.5 



District 25 

Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 



693 
665 

1,247 



81.3% 
85.4% 
83.5% 



114 

58 

136 



13.4% 
7.4% 
9.1% 



45 

56 

110 



5.3% 
7.2% 
7.4% 



852 

779 

1,493 



93.5 
91.7 
99.3 



44.0 
44.0 
48.0 



District Totals 2,605 



83.4% 



308 



9.9% 



211 



6.8% 



3,124 



95.9 



46.0 



District 26 

Mecklenburg 



4,315 



79.4% 



422 



7.8% 



697 12.8% 



5,434 153.7 



68.0 



District 27A 

Gaston 



2,072 



82.4% 



114 



4.5% 



329 13.1% 



2,515 



129.8 



42.0 



District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 



1,058 
494 



87.4% 
93.7% 



137 
23 



11.3% 
4.4% 



15 
10 



1.2% 
1.9% 



1,210 
527 



75.9 
79.3 



43.0 
38.0 



District Totals 1,552 



89.3% 



160 



9.2% 



25 



1.4% 



1,737 



77.0 



42.0 



District 28 

Buncombe 



1,537 



74.0% 



332 



16.0% 



209 



10.1% 



2,078 142.7 



59.0 



210 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 





<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) Age (Da 


District 29 


















Henderson 


528 


87.1% 


53 


8.7% 


25 


4.1% 


606 


95.9 43.0 


McDowell 


346 


90.8% 


22 


5.8% 


13 


3.4% 


381 


76.5 49.0 


Polk 


78 


88.6% 


6 


6.8% 


4 


4.5% 


88 


91.5 48.0 


Rutherford 


558 


90.0% 


29 


4.7% 


33 


5.3% 


620 


78.2 42.0 


Transylvania 


200 


77.5% 


22 


8.5% 


36 


14.0% 


258 


146.4 49.5 



District Totals 1,710 



87.6% 



132 



6.8% 



111 



5.7% 



1,953 



93.0 



44.0 



District 30 




















Cherokee 


147 


80.3% 


24 


13.1% 


12 


6.6% 


183 


104.4 


50.0 


Clay 


33 


80.5% 


4 


9.8% 


4 


9.8% 


41 


117.6 


68.0 


Graham 


55 


84.6% 


7 


10.8% 


3 


4.6% 


65 


97.0 


50.0 


Haywood 


401 


87.2% 


40 


8.7% 


19 


4.1% 


460 


93.5 


46.5 


Jackson 


191 


83.8% 


24 


10.5% 


13 


5.7% 


228 


116.4 


46.0 


Macon 


177 


84.3% 


24 


11.4% 


9 


4.3% 


210 


84.9 


42.5 


Swain 


62 


79.5% 


12 


15.4% 


4 


5.1% 


78 


112.1 


59.0 


District Totals 


1,066 


84.3% 


135 


10.7% 


64 


5.1% 


1,265 


99.9 


47.0 


State Totals 


60,296 


82.7% 


5,834 


8.0% 


6,760 


9.3% 


72,890 


127.7 


50.0 



21 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 







Ages 


of Pendin 


S Cases (Months) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 1 




















Camden 


10 


71.4% 


1 


7.1% 


3 


21.4% 


14 


334.5 


149.0 


Chowan 


16 


51.6% 


7 


22.6% 


8 


25.8% 


31 


401.5 


207.0 


Currituck 


34 


33.0% 


24 


23.3% 


45 


43.7% 


103 


577.4 


456.0 


Dare 


146 


65.2% 


58 


25.9% 


20 


8.9% 


224 


230.2 


164.0 


Gates 


5 


55.6% 


2 


22.2% 


2 


22.2% 


9 


312.0 


260.0 


Pasquotank 


70 


56.0% 


22 


17.6% 


33 


26.4% 


125 


314.8 


225.0 


Perquimans 


14 


48.3% 


3 


10.3% 


12 


41.4% 


29 


584.8 


339.0 


District Totals 


295 


55.1% 


117 


21.9% 


123 


23.0% 


535 


350.0 


226.0 


District 2 




















Beaufort 


83 


46.6% 


35 


19.7% 


60 


33.7% 


178 


480.8 


321.5 


Hyde 


12 


54.5% 


2 


9.1% 


8 


36.4% 


22 


473.1 


249.0 


Martin 


35 


67.3% 


5 


9.6% 


12 


23.1% 


52 


415.5 


120.5 


Tyrrell 


5 


33.3% 


10 


66.7% 





0.0% 


15 


265.2 


362.0 


Washington 


18 


51.4% 


10 


28.6% 


7 


20.0% 


35 


335.0 


239.0 


District Totals 


153 


50.7% 


62 


20.5% 


87 


28.8% 


302 


441.4 


265.5 


District 3 




















Carteret 


102 


84.3% 


14 


11.6% 


5 


4.1% 


121 


170.9 


122.0 


Craven 


185 


85.3% 


21 


9.7% 


11 


5.1% 


217 


157.5 


99.0 


Pamlico 


14 


87.5% 


2 


12.5% 





0.0% 


16 


109.8 


54.0 


Pitt 


303 


95.6% 


14 


4.4% 





0.0% 


317 


95.8 


73.0 


District Totals 


604 


90.0% 


51 


7.6% 


16 


2.4% 


671 


129.6 


88.0 


District 4 




















Duplin 


69 


52.7% 


46 


35.1% 


16 


12.2% 


131 


297.8 


236.0 


Jones 


14 


56.0% 


4 


16.0% 


7 


28.0% 


25 


553.8 


214.0 


Onslow 


330 


37.9% 


198 


22.8% 


342 


39.3% 


870 


498.6 


386.5 


Sampson 


101 


90.2% 


6 


5.4% 


5 


4.5% 


112 


124.0 


88.5 


District Totals 


514 


45.2% 


254 


22.3% 


370 


32.5% 


1,138 


439.8 


312.0 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


730 


67.3% 


292 


26.9% 


63 


5.8% 


1,085 


203.2 


141.0 


Pender 


80 


75.5% 


12 


11.3% 


14 


13.2% 


106 


225.4 


131.0 


District Totals 


810 


68.0% 


304 


25.5% 


77 


6.5% 


1,191 


205.2 


138.0 


District 6A 




















Halifax 


81 


82.7% 


14 


14.3% 


3 


3.1% 


98 


139.0 


70.5 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


26 


45.6% 


22 


38.6% 


9 


15.8% 


57 


319.8 


320.0 


Hertford 


35 


72.9% 


11 


22.9% 


2 


4.2% 


48 


190.9 


135.5 


Northampton 


26 


55.3% 


14 


29.8% 


7 


14.9% 


47 


275.4 


228.0 


District Totals 


87 


57.2% 


47 


30.9% 


18 


11.8% 


152 


265.4 


213.0 



212 






AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 





<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Pending 


Age (Days) Age (Dai 


District 7 




















Edgecombe 


97 


66.4% 


26 


17.8% 


23 


15.8% 


146 


252.2 


116.5 


Nash 


249 


70.5% 


50 


14.2% 


54 


15.3% 


353 


246.4 


131.0 


Wilson 


142 


55.0% 


76 


29.5% 


40 


15.5% 


258 


364.9 


209.5 


District Totals 


488 


64.5% 


152 


20.1% 


117 


15.5% 


757 


287.9 


156.0 


District 8 




















Greene 


18 


62.1% 


9 


31.0% 


2 


6.9% 


29 


246.1 


211.0 


Lenoir 


165 


72.1% 


51 


22.3% 


13 


5.7% 


229 


216.0 


141.0 


Wayne 


457 


58.9% 


248 


32.0% 


71 


9.1% 


776 


263.7 


205.0 


District Totals 


640 


61.9% 


308 


29.8% 


86 


8.3% 


1,034 


252.6 


192.0 


District 9 




















Franklin 


79 


80.6% 


11 


11.2% 


8 


8.2% 


98 


206.5 


153.0 


Granville 


70 


85.4% 


9 


11.0% 


3 


3.7% 


82 


133.7 


85.0 


Person 


44 


78.6% 


12 


21.4% 





0.0% 


56 


157.4 


108.0 


Vance 


133 


69.6% 


34 


17.8% 


24 


12.6% 


191 


257.5 


170.0 


Warren 


31 


60.8% 


11 


21.6% 


9 


17.6% 


51 


302.8 


211.0 


District Totals 


357 


74.7% 


77 


16.1% 


44 


9.2% 


478 


218.9 


141.5 


District 10 




















Wake 


3,222 


52.7% 


1,179 


19.3% 


1,714 


28.0% 


6,115 


391.2 


242.0 


District 11 




















Harnett 


229 


63.3% 


125 


34.5% 


8 


2.2% 


362 


216.3 


211.0 


Johnston 


278 


71.1% 


96 


24.6% 


17 


4.3% 


391 


189.4 


141.0 


Lee 


272 


69.2% 


112 


28.5% 


9 


2.3% 


393 


193.6 


138.0 


District Totals 


779 


68.0% 


333 


29.1% 


34 


3.0% 


1,146 


199.3 


156.0 


District 12 




















Cumberland 


677 


92.5% 


49 


6.7% 


6 


0.8% 


732 


108.1 


66.0 


District 13 




















Bladen 


128 


77.6% 


31 


18.8% 


6 


3.6% 


165 


160.0 


60.0 


Brunswick 


154 


41.3% 


68 


18.2% 


151 


40.5% 


373 


499.0 


400.0 


Columbu^ 


143 


42.2% 


102 


30.1% 


94 


27.7% 


339 


393.7 


340.0 


District Totals 


425 


48.5% 


201 


22.9% 


251 


28.6% 


877 


394.5 


283.0 


District 14 




















Durham 


878 


68.4% 


287 


22.4% 


119 


9.3% 


1,284 


241.4 


165.0 


District 15A 




















Alamance 


343 


58.1% 


150 


25.4% 


97 


16.4% 


590 


274.3 


214.0 



213 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 





<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Pending 


Age (Days) Age (Da) 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


52 


61.9% 


31 


36.9% 


1 


1.2% 


84 


227.3 


209.0 


Orange 


265 


59.8% 


109 


24.6% 


69 


15.6% 


443 


270.9 


180.0 


District Totals 


317 


60.2% 


140 


26.6% 


70 


13.3% 


527 


264.0 


190.0 


District 16A 




















Hoke 


35 


74.5% 


8 


17.0% 


4 


8.5% 


47 


225.8 


211.0 


Scotland 


74 


53.6% 


43 


31.2% 


21 


15.2% 


138 


314.3 


243.5 


District Totals 


109 


58.9% 


51 


27.6% 


25 


13.5% 


185 


291.8 


228.0 


District 16B 




















Robeson 


341 


52.2% 


98 


15.0% 


214 


32.8% 


653 


396.8 


228.0 


District 17A 




















Caswell 


20 


58.8% 


9 


26.5% 


5 


14.7% 


34 


298.6 


178.0 


Rockingham 


188 


87.9% 


25 


11.7% 


1 


0.5% 


214 


104.3 


53.0 


District Totals 


208 


83.9% 


34 


13.7% 


6 


2.4% 


248 


130.9 


65.5 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


37 


42.5% 


32 


36.8% 


18 


20.7% 


87 


348.2 


313.0 


Surry 


124 


55.9% 


44 


19.8% 


54 


24.3% 


222 


336.4 


203.0 


District Totals 


161 


52.1% 


76 


24.6% 


72 


23.3% 


309 


339.7 


253.0 


District 18 




















Guilford 


2,089 


43.4% 


999 


20.7% 


1,727 


35.9% 


4,815 


468.2 


353.0 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


257 


81.8% 


40 


12.7% 


17 


5.4% 


314 


163.4 


102.5 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 


67 


31.3% 


39 


18.2% 


108 


50.5% 


214 


741.2 


562.5 


Randolph 


181 


83.4% 


27 


12.4% 


9 


4.1% 


217 


157.7 


110.0 


District Totals 


248 


57.5% 


66 


15.3% 


117 


27.1% 


431 


447.4 


191.0 


District 19C 




















Rowan 


293 


75.3% 


71 


18.3% 


25 


6.4% 


389 


186.5 


117.0 


District 20 




















Anson 


51 


32.5% 


39 


24.8% 


67 


42.7% 


157 


666.0 


479.0 


Moore 


172 


46.2% 


106 


28.5% 


94 


25.3% 


372 


396.6 


302.5 


Richmond 


139 


52.7% 


81 


30.7% 


44 


16.7% 


264 


332.8 


246.5 


Stanly 


125 


26.8% 


57 


12.2% 


284 


60.9% 


466 


1,226.9 


983.5 


Union 


205 


47.8% 


118 


27.5% 


106 


24.7% 


429 


358.7 


310.0 


District Totals 


692 


41.0% 


401 


23.8% 


595 


35.2% 


1,688 


631.3 


369.0 


District 21 




















Forsyth 


1,503 


74.7% 


343 


17.0% 


166 


8.3% 


2,012 


198.5 


100.0 



214 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 



<9 

30 
202 

71 
288 

591 



% 

90.9% 
50.5% 
71.0% 
61.4% 

59.0% 



9-18 

3 

105 

21 

133 



% 

9.1% 
26.3% 
21.0% 
28.4% 



262 26.1% 



>18 


93 

8 
48 

149 



0.0% 
23.3% 

8.0% 
10.2% 

14.9% 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



33 
400 
100 
469 

1,002 



103.5 
339.1 
201.9 
228.8 

266.0 



82.0 
269.0 
139.5 
150.0 

173.0 



District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 



14 

40 

339 

65 



70.0% 
87.0% 
93.1% 

51.2% 



2 

4 

18 

25 



10.0% 
8.7% 
4.9% 

19.7% 



4 

2 

7 

37 



20.0% 
4.3% 
1.9% 

29.1% 



20 

46 

364 

127 



271.6 
138.4 
106.3 
499.7 



111.5 
55.5 
72.0 

241.0 



District Totals 



458 



82.2% 



49 



8.8% 



50 



9.0% 



557 



204.6 



88.0 



District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



44 
16 
44 
166 
15 



62.0% 
66.7% 
74.6% 
81.0% 
75.0% 



21 



30 

3 



29.6% 
33.3% 
13.6% 
14.6% 
15.0% 



6 


8.5% 


71 


243.7 


131.0 





0.0% 


24 


167.4 


137.0 


7 


11.9% 


59 


223.8 


145.0 


9 


4.4% 


205 


158.6 


115.0 


2 


10.0% 


20 


257.8 


111.0 



District Totals 



285 



75.2% 



70 



18.5% 



24 



6.3% 



379 



190.4 



115.0 



District 25 
Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 



215 
134 
426 



82.4% 
72.8% 
79.9% 



28 
37 
82 



10.7% 
20.1% 
15.4% 



18 
13 

25 



6.9% 
7.1% 
4.7% 



261 
184 
533 



158.5 
203.5 
180.7 



68.0 
137.0 
131.0 



District Totals 



775 79.2% 



147 



15.0% 



56 



5.7% 



978 



179.1 



114.5 



District 26 

Mecklenburg 



4,372 68.2% 



1,681 



26.2% 



360 



5.6% 



6,413 



212.7 



163.0 



District 27A 
Gaston 



415 



78.2% 



102 



19.2% 



14 



2.6% 



531 



170.4 



110.0 



District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 



185 
65 



96.4% 
97.0% 



3.6% 
3.0% 






0.0% 


192 


100.2 


73.0 





0.0% 


67 


89.8 


66.0 



District Totals 



250 



96.5% 



3.5% 



0.0% 



259 



97.5 



71.0 



District 28 

Buncombe 



641 



82.7% 



107 



13.8% 



27 



3.5% 



775 



155.2 



100.0 



215 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 







Ages ( 


)fPendi 


ng Cases (1\ 


lonths) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 29 




















Henderson 


228 


75.0% 


36 


11.8% 


40 


13.2% 


304 


261.2 


130.0 


McDowell 


75 


86.2% 


11 


12.6% 


1 


1.1% 


87 


120.4 


59.0 


Polk 


15 


65.2% 


3 


13.0% 


5 


21.7% 


23 


263.5 


204.0 


Rutherford 


104 


88.9% 


8 


6.8% 


5 


4.3% 


117 


124.5 


53.0 


Transylvania 


54 


76.1% 


11 


15.5% 


6 


8.5% 


71 


225.9 


144.0 


District Totals 


476 


79.1% 


69 


11.5% 


57 


9.5% 


602 


210.2 


118.5 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


34 


79.1% 


8 


18.6% 


1 


2.3% 


43 


152.0 


74.0 


Clay 


22 


88.0% 


2 


8.0% 


1 


4.0% 


25 


114.0 


53.0 


Graham 


14 


66.7% 


5 


23.8% 


2 


9.5% 


21 


260.1 


200.0 


Haywood 


126 


63.6% 


20 


14.6% 


43 


21.7% 


198 


402.9 


201.5 


Jackson 


51 


68.0% 


21 


28.0% 


3 


4.0% 


75 


193.7 


152.0 


Macon 


34 


41.0% 


19 


22.9% 


30 


36.1% 


83 


552.3 


366.0 


Swain 


17 


81.0% 


4 


19.0% 





0.0% 


21 


141.5 


74.0 


District Totals 


298 


63.9% 


88 


18.9% 


80 


17.2% 


466 


339.0 


169.5 


State Totals 


25,132 


61.9% 


8,488 


20.9% 


7,013 


17.3% 


40,633 


306.3 


177.0 



216 






AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) Total Mean Median 





<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) Age (Dai 


District 1 




















Camden 


4 


36.4% 


4 


36.4% 


3 


27.3% 


11 


634.5 


469.0 


Chowan 


47 


67.1% 


18 


25.7% 


5 


7.1% 


70 


226.9 


164.5 


Currituck 


48 


84.2% 


8 


14.0% 


1 


1.8% 


57 


153.2 


94.0 


Dare 


252 


76.4% 


43 


13.0% 


35 


10.6% 


330 


204.6 


107.0 


Gates 


26 


70.3% 


8 


21.6% 


3 


8.1% 


37 


194.7 


92.0 


Pasquotank 


107 


77.0% 


15 


10.8% 


17 


12.2% 


139 


190.4 


94.0 


Perquimans 


18 


45.0% 


14 


35.0% 


8 


20.0% 


40 


332.8 


359.0 


District Totals 


502 


73.4% 


110 


16.1% 


72 


10.5% 


684 


213.6 


106.0 


District 2 




















Beaufort 


120 


78.9% 


19 


12.5% 


13 


8.6% 


152 


189.9 


90.5 


Hyde 


14 


100.0% 





0.0% 





0.0% 


14 


94.9 


85.0 


Martin 


49 


74.2% 


8 


12.1% 


9 


13.6% 


66 


283.2 


95.5 


Tyrrell 


9 


69.2% 


3 


23.1% 


1 


7.7% 


13 


170.2 


79.0 


Washington 


42 


89.4% 


4 


8.5% 


1 


2.1% 


47 


139.6 


101.0 


District Totals 


234 


80.1% 


34 


11.6% 


24 


8.2% 


292 


197.4 


93.5 


District 3 




















Carteret 


345 


88.9% 


35 


9.0% 


8 


2.1% 


388 


136.2 


98.0 


Craven 


652 


92.0% 


36 


5.1% 


21 


3.0% 


709 


128.1 


91.0 


Pamlico 


32 


91.4% 


2 


5.7% 


1 


2.9% 


35 


153.3 


120.0 


Pitt 


700 


92.3% 


50 


6.6% 


8 


1.1% 


758 


127.8 


103.0 


District Totals 


1,729 


91.5% 


123 


6.5% 


38 


2.0% 


1,890 


130.1 


98.0 


District 4 




















Duplin 


131 


75.7% 


26 


15.0% 


16 


9.2% 


173 


223.9 


108.0 


Jones 


10 


38.5% 


4 


15.4% 


12 


46.2% 


26 


714.8 


417.0 


Onslow 


551 


77.2% 


81 


11.3% 


82 


11.5% 


714 


224.9 


97.0 


Sampson 


233 


86.6% 


26 


9.7% 


10 


3.7% 


269 


146.5 


75.0 


District Totals 


925 


78.3% 


137 


11.6% 


120 


10.2% 


1,182 


217.7 


93.0 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


1,206 


67.2% 


244 


13.6% 


345 


19.2% 


1,795 


265.8 


134.0 


Pender 


131 


61.2% 


64 


29.9% 


19 


8.9% 


214 


238.2 


140.5 


District Totals 


1,337 


66.6% 


308 


15.3% 


364 


18.1% 


2,009 


262.9 


134.0 


District 6A 




















Halifax 


172 


81.1% 


31 


14.6% 


9 


4.2% 


212 


160.2 


91.0 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


81 


91.0% 


7 


7.9% 


1 


1.1% 


89 


118.4 


87.0 


Hertford 


80 


81.6% 


15 


15.3% 


3 


3.1% 


98 


162.0 


91.0 


Northampton 


79 


87.8% 


9 


10.0% 


2 


2.2% 


90 


129.5 


85.0 


District Totals 


240 


86.6% 


31 


11.2% 


6 


2.2% 


277 


137.4 


87.0 



217 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) __ 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 



<9 

280 
501 
311 



% 

80.0% 
76.4% 
76.2% 



9-18 



% 



44 12.6% 

119 18.1% 

69 16.9% 



>18 

26 
36 

28 



7.4% 
5.5% 
6.9% 



Total Mean Median 

Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 



350 
656 
408 



180.2 
182.8 
186.2 



93.5 

94.5 

104.5 



District Totals 1,092 



77.2% 



232 



16.4% 



90 



6.4% 



1,414 



183.1 



97.0 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



66 

377 
517 



89.2% 
74.2% 
70.0% 



5 

111 
180 



6.8% 
21.9% 
24.4% 



3 
20 

42 



4.1% 
3.9% 
5.7% 



74 
508 
739 



119.4 
171.8 
194.0 



56.5 
86.0 
92.0 



District Totals 



960 



72.7% 



296 



22.4% 



65 



4.9% 1,321 



181.3 



88.0 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



150 
155 
130 
204 
65 



72.5% 
82.4% 
73.4% 
74.2% 
70.7% 



50 
28 
40 
57 
19 



24.2% 
14.9% 
22.6% 
20.7% 
20.7% 



7 

5 

7 

14 



3.4% 
2.7% 
4.0% 
5.1% 
8.7% 



207 
188 
177 
275 
92 



204.1 
164.4 
198.6 
191.8 
209.6 



156.0 
102.5 
167.0 
118.0 
117.5 



District Totals 



704 



75.0% 



194 



20.7% 



41 



4.4% 



939 



192.0 



133.0 



District 10 

Wake 



4,798 



79.4% 



724 



12.0% 



518 



8.6% 6,040 



205.5 



102.5 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 



454 
457 
508 



66.2% 
66.6% 
84.4% 



211 

170 

78 



30.8% 
24.8% 
13.0% 



21 
59 
16 



3.1% 
8.6% 
2.7% 



686 
686 
602 



206.5 
223.3 
139.1 



143.5 

110.0 

67.0 



District Totals 1,419 



71.9% 



459 



23.3% 



96 



4.9% 



1,974 



191.8 



99.0 



District 12 

Cumberland 



1,678 



84.2% 



192 



9.6% 



123 



6.2% 



1,993 



165.7 



103.0 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 



214 
336 
235 



80.1% 
58.4% 
54.1% 



38 
68 

52 



14.2% 
11.8% 

12.0% 



15 
171 
147 



5.6% 
29.7% 
33.9% 



267 
575 

434 



160.7 
411.8 
404.1 



88.0 
145.0 
197.0 



District Totals 



785 



61.5% 



158 



12.4% 



333 



26.1% 



1,276 



356.6 



123.0 



District 14 

Durham 



1,540 



77.3% 



300 



15.1% 



151 



7.6% 



1,991 



191.2 



108.0 



District 15A 

Alamance 



662 



76.4% 



58 



6.7% 



146 



16.9% 



866 



222.9 



97.5 



218 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 





<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) Age (Daj 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


114 


69.5% 


35 


21.3% 


15 


9.1% 


164 


208.7 


106.5 


Orange 


338 


82.0% 


52 


12.6% 


22 


5.3% 


412 


172.1 


103.5 


District Totals 


452 


78.5% 


87 


15.1% 


37 


6.4% 


576 


182.5 


104.0 


District 16A 




















Hoke 


78 


78.8% 


21 


21.2% 





0.0% 


99 


138.5 


84.0 


Scotland 


222 


82.8% 


25 


9.3% 


21 


7.8% 


268 


175.5 


68.0 


District Totals 


300 


81.7% 


46 


12.5% 


21 


5.7% 


367 


165.5 


69.0 


District 16B 




















Robeson 


551 


84.1% 


43 


6.6% 


61 


9.3% 


655 


154.0 


57.0 


District 17A 




















Caswell 


56 


87.5% 


6 


9.4% 


2 


3.1% 


64 


128.7 


60.5 


Rockingham 


455 


66.3% 


217 


31.6% 


14 


2.0% 


686 


185.0 


116.0 


District Totals 


511 


68.1% 


223 


29.7% 


16 


2.1% 


750 


180.2 


110.0 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


68 


81.0% 


11 


13.1% 


5 


6.0% 


84 


159.7 


84.5 


Surry 


262 


90.3% 


26 


9.0% 


2 


0.7% 


290 


112.2 


68.0 


District Totals 


330 


88.2% 


37 


9.9% 


7 


1.9% 


374 


122.9 


70.0 


District 18 




















Guilford 


3,451 


75.9% 


467 


10.3% 


630 


13.9% 


4,548 


252.8 


93.0 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


949 


74.2% 


179 


14.0% 


151 


11.8% 


1,279 


196.6 


74.0 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 


227 


93.8% 


13 


5.4% 


2 


0.8% 


242 


109.0 


79.5 


Randolph 


444 


80.4% 


77 


13.9% 


31 


5.6% 


552 


152.9 


71.0 


District Totals 


671 


84.5% 


90 


11.3% 


33 


4.2% 


794 


139.5 


75.0 


District 19C 




















Rowan 


381 


55.8% 


264 


38.7% 


38 


5.6% 


683 


248.6 


235.0 


District 20 




















Anson 


58 


59.8% 


14 


14.4% 


25 


25.8% 


97 


315.0 


145.0 


Moore 


269 


46.1% 


43 


7.4% 


271 


46.5% 


583 


757.2 


370.0 


Richmond 


272 


62.4% 


71 


16.3% 


93 


21.3% 


436 


302.9 


126.0 


Stanly 


162 


81.4% 


19 


9.5% 


18 


9.0% 


199 


237.5 


97.0 


Union 


270 


55.4% 


45 


9.2% 


172 


35.3% 


487 


405.6 


187.0 



District Totals 1,031 



57.2% 



192 



10.7% 



579 



32.1% 1,802 



471.1 



175.5 



District 21 

Forsyth 



2,495 



81.0% 



320 



10.4% 



267 



8.7% 3,082 



193.8 



100.0 



219 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 



<9 

51 

465 
93 

457 



76.1% 
77.5% 
73.8% 

77.3% 



9-18 

13 
61 
27 
92 



% 

19.4% 
10.2% 

21.4% 
15.6% 



>18 

3 

74 
6 

42 



% 

4.5% 

12.3% 

4.8% 

7.1% 



Total Mean Median 

Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 



67 
600 
126 
591 



180.0 
211.6 
180.4 
182.7 



138.0 
91.0 

122.0 
92.0 



District Totals 1,066 



77.0% 



193 



13.9% 



125 



9.0% 



1,384 



194.9 



93.5 



District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 



31 

61 

937 

98 



83.8% 
73.5% 
92.0% 

77.2% 



4 
18 
69 
21 



10.8% 

21.7% 

6.8% 

16.5% 



2 

4 

12 



5.4% 
4.8% 
1.2% 
6.3% 



37 

83 

1,018 

127 



169.4 
179.4 
111.0 
265.9 



132.0 
99.0 
57.0 
86.0 



District Totals 1,127 



89.1% 



112 



8.9% 



26 



2.1% 



1,265 



132.8 



67.0 



District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



93 

18 

107 

227 

35 



86.1% 
64.3% 
87.0% 
78.5% 
71.4% 



13 

6 
15 
59 

6 



12.0% 
21.4% 
12.2% 
20.4% 

12.2% 



2 


1.9% 


108 


138.8 


82.0 


4 


14.3% 


28 


246.3 


160.0 


1 


0.8% 


123 


124.7 


78.0 


3 


1.0% 


289 


163.6 


118.0 


8 


16.3% 


49 


276.1 


119.0 



District Totals 



480 



80.4% 



99 



16.6% 



18 



3.0% 



597 



164.2 



106.0 



District 25 

Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 



545 
416 
734 



91.0% 
73.8% 
85.2% 



38 
127 
109 



6.3% 
22.5% 
12.6% 



16 

21 
19 



2.7% 
3.7% 
2.2% 



599 
564 
862 



136.8 
177.9 
140.8 



88.0 
95.0 
82.0 



District Totals 1,695 



83.7% 



274 



13.5% 



56 



2.8% 2,025 



150.0 



86.0 



District 26 

Mecklenburg 



6,419 



65.8% 



2,262 



23.2% 



1,068 



11.0% 9,749 



233.5 



139.0 



District 27A 

Gaston 



881 



76.1% 



242 20.9% 



34 



2.9% 



1,157 



158.5 



80.0 



District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 



417 
252 



93.1% 
97.3% 



30 
7 



6.7% 
2.7% 



0.2% 
0.0% 



448 
259 



113.5 
102.7 



79.0 
85.0 



District Totals 



669 



94.6% 



37 



5.2% 



0.1% 



707 



109.6 



81.0 



District 28 

Buncombe 



1,397 



83.3% 



242 



14.4% 



39 



2.3% 



1,678 



161.1 



116.0 



220 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) Total Mean Median 





<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) Age (Da 


District 29 




















Henderson 


478 


87.9% 


25 


4.6% 


41 


7.5% 


544 


187.5 


116.0 


McDowell 


167 


89.3% 


16 


8.6% 


4 


2.1% 


187 


132.8 


91.0 


Polk 


33 


75.0% 


7 


15.9% 


4 


9.1% 


44 


200.3 


138.0 


Rutherford 


237 


90.1% 


20 


7.6% 


6 


2.3% 


263 


142.3 


100.0 


Transylvania 


110 


84.0% 


10 


7.6% 


11 


8.4% 


131 


179.2 


110.0 


District Totals 


1,025 


87.7% 


78 


6.7% 


66 


5.6% 


1,169 


168.1 


109.0 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


129 


92.8% 


9 


6.5% 


1 


0.7% 


139 


122.5 


103.0 


Clay 


38 


90.5% 


4 


9.5% 





0.0% 


42 


116.9 


82.0 


Graham 


38 


86.4% 


3 


6.8% 


3 


6.8% 


44 


181.4 


71.0 


Haywood 


257 


83.4% 


45 


14.6% 


6 


1.9% 


308 


167.0 


123.0 


Jackson 


154 


89.0% 


15 


8.7% 


4 


2.3% 


173 


134.4 


97.0 


Macon 


71 


77.2% 


14 


15.2% 


7 


7.6% 


92 


198.5 


124.5 


Swain 


41 


80.4% 


9 


17.6% 


1 


2.0% 


51 


172.6 


133.0 


District Totals 


728 


85.7% 


99 


11.7% 


22 


2.6% 


849 


155.1 


110.0 


State Totals 


45,386 


75.8% 


8,973 


15.0% 


5,491 


9.2% 


59,850 


209.1 


104.0 



221 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 

District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 



ings 


Dispositions 


121 


106 


597 


547 


282 


250 


569 


579 


167 


227 


,090 


1,089 


170 


222 



2,996 



1,357 
131 
973 
235 
427 

3,123 



1,550 

2,465 

313 

3,666 



3,020 



1,429 
133 
954 
171 
359 

3,046 



1,549 

2,434 

265 

3,692 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 

District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 

District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 

District 10 

Wake 



Filings Dispositions 



7,268 
6,318 
5,608 

19,194 



275 
2,217 
3,375 

5,867 



1,461 
1,688 
1,048 
4,258 
1,234 

9,689 



18,693 



7,204 
6,544 
5,846 

19,594 



320 

2,275 
3,323 

5,918 



1,364 
1,676 
992 
4,458 
1,301 

9,791 



18,451 



District Totals 

District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 



7,994 



1,665 

284 

4,809 

1,604 

8,362 



7,940 



1,746 

282 

4,899 

1,709 

8,636 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 

District 12 

Cumberland 



1,883 
2,657 
1,209 

5,749 



12,257 



1,928 
2,640 
1,174 

5,742 



12,391 



District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6A 

Halifax 

District 6B 

Bertie 
Hertford 

Northampton 

District Totals 



6,725 

732 

7,457 



1,928 



680 
594 
657 

1,931 



6,742 
746 

7,488 



1,963 



706 
598 
662 

1,966 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 

District 14 

Durham 

District 15A 

Alamance 



3,066 
1,267 
1,382 

5,715 



17,529 



3,552 



2,925 
1,627 
1,363 

5,915 



17,684 



3,686 



222 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 



Filings Dispositions 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 

District 16A 

Hoke 
Scotland 

District Totals 

District 16B 

Robeson 

District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 

District Totals 

District 17B 

Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 

District 18 

Guilford 

District 19A 

Cabarrus 



873 
2,193 

3,066 



783 
1,745 

2,528 



4,538 



397 
2,879 

3,276 



654 
1,941 

2,595 



18,470 



3,066 



867 
2,173 

3,040 



1,018 
1,701 

2,719 



4,491 



390 
2,873 

3,263 



655 
1,912 

2,567 



19,188 



2,732 



District 21 

Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 

District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 

District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 

District Totals 

District 25 
Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 



Filings 


Dispositions 


21,129 


21,308 


481 


459 


3,523 


3,461 


571 


368 


3,791 


3,762 



8,366 



159 

343 

2,438 

547 

3,487 



285 
199 
386 
760 
386 

2,016 



2,486 
2,077 
3,323 



8,050 



168 

377 

2,388 

569 

3,502 



251 
215 
325 
756 
351 

1,898 



2,419 
2,070 
3,326 



District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 

District Totals 

District 19C 

Rowan 

District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 



1,710 
2,125 

3,835 



3,377 



859 
1,609 
1,762 
1,147 
2,912 

8,289 



1,521 
2,164 

3,685 



3,383 



844 
1,589 
1,790 
1,074 
2,883 

8,180 



District Totals 

District 26 

Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 

Buncombe 



7,886 



40,228 



5,460 



4,823 
1,457 

6,280 



4,878 



7,815 

39,343 

5,688 

4,739 
1,475 

6,214 
4,908 



223 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 







July 


1, 1989 - 


- June 30, 1990 








Filings 


Dispositions 




Filings 


Dispositions 


District 29 








District 30 






Henderson 


1,370 




1,387 


Cherokee 


408 


388 


McDowell 


881 




900 


Clay 


154 


163 


Polk 


259 




277 


Graham 


135 


143 


Rutherford 


2,536 




2,530 


Haywood 


831 


857 


Transylvania 


399 




442 


Jackson 
Macon 


346 

375 


301 
406 


District Totals 


5,445 




5,536 


Swain 

District Totals 
State Totals 


72 

2,321 

292,572 


56 

2,314 
293,055 



224 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 



OFFENSES 



CONDITIONS 



Delinquent 



Undisciplined 



Other Misde- 



Children 
Parental Before 

Rights Grand Court for 



Capital Felony meanor Total Truancy Other Total Dependent Neglected Abused Petitions Total First Time 



District 1 


















Camden 























2 


Chowan 








21 


21 











2 


Currituck 





2 


17 


19 














Dare 





1 


19 


20 





3 


3 


10 


Gates 





4 





4 





1 


1 





Pasquotank 





12 


32 


44 











8 


Perquimans 





1 


1 


2 











1 


District Totals 





20 


90 


110 





4 


4 


23 


District 2 


















Beaufort 





28 


45 


73 


2 


1 


3 


11 


Hyde 








3 


3 














Martin 





32 


78 


110 











8 


Tyrrell 





2 


3 


5 











1 


Washington 





37 


24 


61 


2 





2 





District Totals 





99 


153 


252 


4 


1 


5 


20 


District 3 


















Carteret 





23 


76 


99 





3 


3 


5 


Craven 





68 


197 


265 





6 


6 


10 


Pamlico 





6 


5 


11 














Pitt 





89 


259 


348 


11 


2 


13 


48 


District Totals 





186 


537 


723 


11 


11 


22 


63 


District 4 


















Duplin 





23 


112 


135 





4 


4 


3 


Jones 





1 


3 


4 





1 


1 


8 


Onslow 





94 


194 


288 


11 


6 


17 


20 


Sampson 





18 


59 


77 





1 


1 


5 


District Totals 





136 


368 


504 


11 


12 


23 


36 


District 5 


















New Hanover 





808 


454 


1,262 





65 


65 


10 


Pender 





19 


41 


60 





4 


4 


2 


District Totals 





827 


495 


1,322 





69 


69 


12 


District 6A 


















Halifax 





100 


98 


198 





2 


2 


4 



5 


3 





10 


5 








1 


24 


23 


9 


8 





36 


48 


5 


3 


3 


44 


40 








1 


6 


8 


31 


10 


6 


99 


59 





1 





4 


4 



50 



60 



67 



71 



21 



25 



15 



30 



11 



11 



25 



56 



16 



223 



908 



716 



1,501 



227 



196 



14 


2 


1 


104 


54 





1 





4 


5 


13 


10 





141 


53 


2 


2 


2 


12 


8 


3 


25 





91 


27 


32 


40 


3 


352 


147 


14 


5 


12 


138 


56 


13 


4 


4 


302 


102 


1 





2 


14 


14 


32 


6 


7 


454 


136 



308 



14 


5 


5 


166 


44 


8 


3 





24 


20 


39 


21 


45 


430 


173 


6 


1 


6 


96 


40 



277 



58 


6 


16 


1,417 


302 


13 


5 





84 


48 



350 



111 



225 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



Delinquent 







Other 


Misde- 














Capital Felony 


meanor 


Total 


Truancy 


Other Total De 


pende 


District 6B 


















Bertie 








48 


48 














Hertford 





8 


76 


84 


1 





1 


6 


Northampton 





18 


21 


39 











2 


District Totals 





26 


145 


171 


1 





1 


8 


District 7 


















Edgecombe 





43 


124 


167 


2 


2 


4 


24 


Nash 





78 


229 


307 


4 


12 


16 


21 


Wilson 





94 


196 


290 


1 


14 


15 


14 


District Totals 





215 


549 


764 


7 


28 


35 


59 


District 8 


















Greene 





6 


14 


20 





1 


1 


4 


Lenoir 





36 


57 


93 


2 


10 


12 


14 


Wayne 


1 


87 


108 


196 


5 


30 


35 


53 


District Totals 


1 


129 


179 


309 


7 


41 


48 


71 


District 9 


















Franklin 





13 


23 


36 


10 


5 


15 


1 


Granville 


1 


71 


110 


182 


7 


12 


19 


7 


Person 





28 


108 


136 


9 


8 


17 


3 


Vance 





70 


52 


122 


2 


8 


10 


5 


Warren 





3 


18 


21 





2 


2 


5 


District Totals 


1 


185 


311 


497 


28 


35 


63 


21 


District 10 


















Wake 





270 


699 


969 


18 


166 


184 


66 


District 11 


















Harnett 





63 


7 


70 


2 


4 


6 


8 


Johnston 





91 


120 


211 


19 


8 


27 


1 


Lee 





63 


93 


156 


7 





7 


5 


District Totals 





217 


220 


437 


28 


12 


40 


14 


District 12 


















Cumberland 


2 


438 


889 


1,329 


4 


392 


396 


193 


District 13 


















Bladen 





6 


44 


50 











20 


Brunswick 





42 


55 


97 


4 


7 


11 


5 


Columbus 





17 


43 


60 


5 


8 


13 


2 


District Totals 





65 


142 


207 


9 


15 


24 


27 



July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS Children 

Undisciplined Parental Before 

Rights Grand Court for 



28 



3 





4 


55 


11 


4 


3 


109 


6 





1 


48 



20 



107 



144 



60 



99 



46 



230 



38 



17 



25 



28 



13 



94 



33 



32 



29 



11 



10 



212 



1,036 



621 



675 



1,375 



561 



2,252 



31 



147 



38 


11 


18 


262 


149 


25 


8 


10 


387 


174 


44 


19 


5 


387 


150 



473 



4 








29 


23 


49 


7 


14 


189 


136 


91 


10 


18 


403 


161 



320 



8 


1 


1 


62 


42 


8 


4 


4 


224 


80 


18 


8 


4 


186 


69 


8 


2 





147 


64 


18 


10 





56 


28 



283 



453 



14 


8 


2 


108 


70 


19 


2 


7 


267 


120 


13 


3 


2 


186 


79 



269 



760 



22 


9 


2 


103 


65 


9 


7 


5 


134 


63 


15 


1 


2 


93 


55 



46 



17 



330 



183 



226 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



Delinquent 







Other 


Misde- 














Capital Felony 


meanor 


Total 


Truancy 


Other Total De 


pende 


District 14 


















Durham 





160 


143 


303 


4 


99 


103 


54 


District 15A 


















Alamance 





45 


141 


186 


14 


142 


156 


16 


District 15B 


















Chatham 





16 


20 


36 











19 


Orange 





67 


70 


137 





6 


6 


8 


District Totals 





83 


90 


173 





6 


6 


27 


District 16A 


















Hoke 





26 


48 


74 


8 





8 


9 


Scotland 





172 


174 


346 





10 


10 





District Totals 





198 


222 


420 


8 


10 


18 


9 


District 16B 


















Robeson 





301 


305 


606 





113 


113 


45 


District 17A 


















Caswell 





10 


19 


29 


2 


2 


4 





Rockingham 





195 


140 


335 


6 


38 


44 





District Totals 





205 


159 


364 


8 


40 


48 





District 17B 


















Stokes 





58 


64 


122 


1 


14 


15 


12 


Surry 





33 


19 


52 


2 


5 


7 


1 


District Totals 





91 


83 


174 


3 


19 


22 


13 


District 18 


















Guilford 


3 


412 


700 


1,115 


86 


208 


294 


86 


District 19A 


















Cabarrus 





133 


127 


260 


2 


24 


26 


8 


District 19B 


















Montgomery 





30 


31 


61 


2 


6 


8 


3 


Randolph 


1 


53 


163 


217 


16 


143 


159 


45 


District Totals 


1 


83 


194 


278 


18 


149 


167 


48 


District 19C 


















Rowan 





111 


201 


312 


21 


127 


148 


11 



July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS Children 

Undisciplined Parental Before 

Rights Grand Court for 



51 



18 



53 



4 
51 

55 



10 
9 

19 



87 



20 



21 



13 




10 

10 



25 



22 



15 



18 



55 



10 



554 



397 



290 



97 
420 

517 



39 
394 

433 



192 



146 



21 


10 


8 


94 


56 


32 


3 


10 


196 


171 



227 



50 
108 

158 



64 21 11 860 257 



30 
07 

127 



164 61 

73 69 

237 130 



1,662 1,100 



333 11! 



15 


6 


1 


94 


70 


67 
82 


22 
28 


16 

17 


526 
620 


221 
291 



47 



20 



13 



551 170 



227 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 











OFFENSES 












Delinquent 




Undisciplined 








Other 


Misde- 








Capital Felony 


meanor 


Total 


Truancy 


Other Total De 


pende 


District 20 


















Anson 





5 


17 


22 





3 


3 


3 


Moore 





35 


56 


91 





22 


22 


19 


Richmond 





121 


98 


219 





13 


13 


9 


Stanly 





70 


105 


175 


3 


6 


9 


6 


Union 





129 


170 


299 





2 


2 


36 


District Totals 





360 


446 


806 


3 


46 


49 


73 


District 21 


















Forsyth 





302 


502 


804 


5 


302 


307 


66 


District 22 


















Alexander 





4 


33 


37 





8 


8 


7 


Davidson 





104 


193 


297 


8 


23 


31 


24 


Davie 





11 


54 


65 


4 


7 


1! 


2 


Iredell 





223 


90 


313 


1 


116 


117 


4 


District Totals 





342 


370 


712 


13 


154 


167 


37 


District 23 


















Alleghany 





7 


17 


24 


4 


5 


9 


1 


Ashe 





7 


65 


72 


10 


5 


15 





Wilkes 





27 


122 


149 


29 


46 


75 


25 


Yadkin 





33 


115 


148 


17 


30 


47 


17 


District Totals 





74 


319 


393 


60 


86 


146 


43 


District 24 


















Avery 





27 


23 


50 


46 


18 


64 


9 


Madison 





8 


13 


21 





10 


10 


17 


Mitchell 





5 


30 


35 


14 


8 


22 


9 


Watauga 








67 


67 


3 


32 


35 


12 


Yancey 








10 


10 


2 


5 


7 


1 


District Totals 





40 


143 


183 


65 


73 


138 


48 


District 25 


















Burke 





68 


50 


118 


20 


62 


82 


21 


Caldwell 





39 


36 


75 


20 


64 


84 


54 


Catawba 





57 


167 


224 


15 


51 


66 


17 


District Totals 





164 


253 


417 


55 


177 


232 


92 


District 26 


















Mecklenburg 





583 


1,137 


1,720 


1 


341 


342 


34 


District 27A 


















Gaston 





252 


275 


527 


12 


208 


220 


38 



CONDITIONS 



Children 
Parental Before 
Rights Grand Court for 



8 


3 


2 


41 


35 


50 


26 


5 


213 


97 


29 


15 


5 


290 


103 


12 


7 


8 


217 


77 


41 


17 


5 


400 


120 



140 



94 



111 



131 



50 



111 



219 



63 



68 



14 



36 



52 



19 



46 



29 



17 



25 



37 



41 



17 



52 



94 



20 



1,161 



1,322 



1,104 



782 



447 



950 



2,438 



885 



432 



516 



6 


10 





68 


53 


39 


14 


18 


423 


185 


3 


2 


4 


87 


41 


63 


10 


19 


526 


188 



467 



8 


8 





50 


21 


16 


14 





117 


40 


44 


17 


14 


324 


136 


63 


13 


3 


291 


81 



278 



13 


2 


2 


140 


50 


17 


14 


3 


82 


37 


8 


1 


2 


77 


39 


5 





1 


120 


49 


7 


2 


1 


28 


16 



191 



43 


21 


15 


300 


148 


47 


9 


18 


287 


145 


21 


16 


19 


363 


166 



459 



769 



308 



228 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS Children 

Undisciplined Parental Before 

Other Misde- Rights Grand Court for 

Capital Felony meanor Total Truancy Other Total Dependent Neglected Abused Petitions Total First Time 



Delinquent 



District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 

Buncombe 



61 

23 

84 



60 



58 
53 

111 



119 

76 

195 



11 

7 



204 264 



33 



24 35 
14 21 

38 56 



183 216 



16 

2 



87 



102 



110 



96 



26 
1 

27 



52 



4 
6 

10 



302 
114 

416 



716 



236 
82 

318 



352 



District 29 

Henderson 5 91 96 14 32 46 12 

McDowell 14 33 47 7 31 38 16 

Polk 12 12 8 19 

Rutherford 60 111 171 28 38 66 15 

Transylvania 9 37 46 4 6 10 24 

District Totals 88 284 372 61 108 169 67 



20 


7 


17 


198 


123 


21 


3 


13 


138 


74 


3 


1 


3 


28 


27 


63 


11 


23 


349 


114 


32 


5 


7 


124 


71 



139 



27 



63 



837 



409 



District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 

State Totals 



13 
4 
8 
20 
12 
8 
5 



21 

4 

9 

28 

18 

17 

5 



32 70 102 
8 7,116 11,354 18,478 



11 
1 
11 
41 
13 
10 
7 



15 

4 
13 
46 
22 
17 
11 



11 



18 

8 
16 

2 



34 94 128 55 
652 3,535 4,187 1,592 



24 
2 
1 

19 
7 
8 
8 

69 

2,890 



5 


8 
1 
3 
3 

20 

927 



9 

1 
1 
5 

5 


21 

822 



85 
11 
24 
124 
56 
66 
29 



47 
10 

23 

63 
52 
54 

29 



395 278 
28,896 11,970 



229 



M 

_ c 



3> « vi A ic h tj 

cm co ^r ^ 



c\ in o o\ en 
o\ cm tj- 



CM 



rH r~ os co © 

r~ -3- rn ,-h in 

—< co -^r Os 



h N Oi « oo 

O h M Oi CT\ 

cm -*r r- 



s: 

H 
- 
< 



-J 

a b © 

s. a ss 

S 5 2 



z 



U 
H 

u 
2 



o 
m 

v 

c 
s 



^ ^r a 

2 5 2 
w - 

SB £ 3 

> Z ^ 

o 
- 
< 

u 

— 

Q 

- 

< 



s4 .= 
SI 



u 

c 



3 * 
O" C 



o o o o o o o 



~- © © CO r- cm © 



CM O i-H O O O O 



rn o m co © r~ rn 



CM © CO © © © O 



cm o in VI 



o o o 
co 



-h o o cm o o o 



o cm o oo o ^o ^-1 



© o o CO i-i o — i 



o © cm © © © © 



© CM CM O T OO rH 



© — < r- 

CM ~+ 



© © oo © 

rH -cj- 



cm 



CO 



8 



© © © —I © I-H 



O © t— < t-H i— I 



— r-H © © © 



« H ^ N O 



co © to © © 



rH rH r- CM i-H 



© © co © © 



00 © CM © © 



O © rH O rH 



cm 



CO © © © rH 



© CM rH 



cm cm oo co r^ 

In 00 CO 



i-H CM © O 



vjp vo 



■H/ l-H © © 



CO CO © CM 



^r -^r © c- 



CO CM ■— ( 00 



-3- in © -rr 



r- oo co »-H 
co 



© © © m 



CM lO i-H CM 



O vo m *o 

t oo oo 



in 00 CO 

l-H lO 

CM CM 



-3- 






co 



CM © CO © 



CM © -<fr \C 
CM 



CO © \D © 



o\ r- © i— i 
in 



CM rH »0 © 



in oo -* \o 
co cm r~- 



■ri- oo \o in 

CM CM 



rH O CM © 



CM CM CM rH 



oo rH in co 
co 



CM 
CO 






o 



© rH O O rH 



CO 






CO Tf TT 


!» 


m 


CM 0\ 


t*» 


©< 


rH rH 




CO 



2 5 
Q U 



Sc3 



1 1 

tffl 3 3 

u a* <-r 

3 5S t-i 

O 0- CW 



O 
H 
o 

"S 

s 



Q ca 



<u i3 P i*B 

■5 § s a 

rC S H > 



o 
H 



"S 
S 



u 
u 


c 
> 


i 




u 


u 







£3 


















o 












O 






H 












H 






o 


-r 








fl 


o 


o 
o 

1 


£ 


Q 


Q 


.s 

rV 

Q 


O 

c 

o 


6 


o 

el, 

a 

00 


B 

Q 



230 



OX) 

_ c 

IT" 



r- r- 

i— I OO 



o 



co 
CO 



rH O 


■g 


>r> 


SO so 


■3- 


SO 


i— 1 




CN 



cn o 


co 


>/-> 


oo in 


t"» 


O 


r- 1 co 


ro 


o 



co so o 


o> 


•— I 00 Vi-) 


■* 


r-H T^- 


so 



W 
H 
H 



-1 



Wj o 
> c? ^ 

rr ^d ** 
9 S ^ 

^ R « 

p$ u f^i 
o h g 

<» 3 7 

° H i 

S 22 S 

;S w - 

S3 E £< 

£* " 

O 
H 
< 
U 

Q 

5 

Q 



5 

c 



*s 



1- 


t/1 


01 


15 


K 




** 
o 


"O 


Ol 


Ol 


6£ 


.£ 


0» 


« 


£ 


Ol 



s-1 

c 

t5 



OS 

oi 



u 

*C 

CS 

Ol 

iH 

E 
Ol 

3 



O CN 



so */-> r-H 



co ■— < oo 



^h CN O 



cn 

CN 



O wi oo 

CM 



O CO CN 



o o 



oo en 



O r-H 



O CN 



l/"> SO 



— < CN O 



CO C\ so 



co o\ r> 



^ rf o 



O CN 



O U-> SO i-H 



O O CO 



c\ 


ON CO SO 


co 


o >/-> 


CO 


CN 


h ^h in 


00 


CN 


o 



CN CO oo 



ro 
ro 



O 00 f- 



O VI IB rl 



c 


O CN 


CN 


3 


SO 


SO 


Ol 






OS 







SO 

On 



m so o ^h 
^H \o ^h o\ 



■*t c— oo 

i a t 



r- 


** 


l-H 


Oi 


O •— i o> 


o 


oo *g- 


co 


o 


o 


IT) 


SO 


o 


CN WO »-H 


On 


CN 


en 


CN 




CN 


»-H 






CN 


CN 


LO 



o so m 

r-l CN 



O oo o 

t-H m 



co Qn CN 



co 

SO 



s 



—i CN 



OS 



•3 



1) 




o 












a 


o 


> 
o 
d 




H 


< 




03 






o 


H 




o 


SO 




so 






a, 
S 


o 




|H 


B 




X 


"5 




"O 


■c 


<L> 


a 


V5 


L. 


1* 


C 


OJ 


^ 


5 


C-0 


Q 




"3 








s 

o 


Q 


<£ 


0L> 




s 


X 


Q 


CQ 


X 


J5 











o 








O 


u 






E- 








H 


E 

o 






o 


90 






tj 




c 


s 


u 


u 


ti u 


B 


o 




o 


CO 




n 


•- a 


c>n 


60 


CO 


GQ 


Q 


4-1 




C a) 


Q 


.d 


2 


| 




Q 


O 


3 £ 





231 



_ c 





— O 
O so 






a2 


ex? 
CO 
CO 


oo ^r 

CO CN 


ON 


co 


00 
CI 
CD 

of 


as r-- 

C\ CN 


C- 


O 
O 



CO 



M 

5 



Pti 

- 
- 
< 



- 



o o o o o 



O -h O —I 



Cfl 



z 

> as os 

S S3 a 

*2 S ® 

as ^ ^ 

O H £ 

El, U 3 

g 2 ? 

as »^ ^* 

< -r 



— • M 



o © >n ■-< o 






CN — " O — i 



— i CO f) CN in 



>n tj- ^h o 



co en O 






-3- 

CN 



oo 

CN 



00 O 00 
CO 



SO 



n 


.= 


n 


-r 


(N CN ^f 


-r 


vO 


— I 00 tj- 


i/ 






■*r cn 


r~ 


CO 


SO ^H 


u 


^ 















»-l O0 



a: 

C 
- 

< 

— 

Q 

- 
< 



= 



as 



00 CN «-h T 
cn 



n 
CN 



*^ </"> 



tj- tj- \o oo ^r 



SO 

CN 



* ci vo ^ r) 



V"i CT\ CN © 

- N Tt 



lO — c 



CI 
CN 



CN 



r- w-i C\ 
cn tj- 



cr c 



so 



— i O O — i 



co ^r oo 



TT CN 0\ 



r» 


o so so 


CN 


CN 


cn 


-H O 


CN 


cn 


■ — i 


CN 


CN 





CO 


CN 


OO 


-^r 


V, 


t-» 


CO 


to 


-3" 






t 


>/-> 


cn 



o 

CO 



OS CN SO 

rt N ^ 



O 

CN 



SO 
CN 



O 
n 



-O O CN V> 00 

cn rr r-~ so cn 



r- 


io >in r~- 


r- 


CN 


c- 


*T 


r-H 


CN 


m 


^r 


■o 


SO so 0\ 


CN 


oo 


T 


r~- 


CO 


tr, 


cn 


r*- 


OO 


f— 1 »— 1 


-r 


SO 






i — i 


CN 


•— i 


■— < 















o 














H 


9 




u 








o 


u 

5 


g 

i 


> 
c 
S3 

'5 




u 

u 


a 

s 


s. 

5 



3 



Q 3C 



a 
a o 
o S 

i ^ « 



3 

Q 

H 
o 

B 



a a 
5 5 











2 













1— c 






09 

3 


H 




a 


if 


E 


B 




c 
2 


_3 

3 


Q 


C 


CQ 


PQ 


O 





t3 a 

5 Q 



io 

s § 

h a 

5 < 



232 



_ B 

© " 



VO 


O 


>/-> 


>* 


cm 


CO 



r- 0\ 


VO 


C\ r-H 




■* 


in 



en 

< — i 

oo 



oo co 
co 



o 


co 


r^ 


-j- 


co 


CO 



PCS 
W 
H 
H 

< 






W J o 
►> K on 

Sp 5 

p< u S 

O H g 

fa U 3 

w 2 7 

£ 55 & 

P< Q S 

< W « 

S s * 

^ Z ^ 
C< H 

O 
H 

U 

Q 

Q 



0£ 

c 



M 

.E 

K 

>> 
u 

C 

3 



O O 



i— I OO 

^h CM 



CO 



O oo 



^ O 

CO 



o o 



IT) 



O CM 
CM 






CM 



o o 



OA CM i-H 



O "-H i-H 



OO 



O 



VO </") -H 






r- 
CM 



O 
CO 







, — i 


vo 


r- 




rj 


CM 


xr 




, — i 




oo 


o 


oo 


1 




" 


r- 


oo 




-* 


f- 


oo 




oo 






iri 


in 




























































5 






























T5 






























e 




vo 


. — i 


t- 




CM 


lO 


f- 




O 




O 


a- 


Q\ 




r<-> 


CO 


VO 




VO 


oo 


-=t 








CM 


oo 


O 


"3 






1-1 


r—< 






C4 


CO 




>o 






ri 


CO 


01 








C/1 

2 








"c3 












so 

2 




as 

IT) 






o 


< 
ve 






O 


PS 

V© 




< 




e 

P3 


a 

H 




r— l 




C3 


<u 








T3 






c 

o 




= 


OD 

c 










00 

a 


Q 


C/5 


CD 
^4 


o 


Q 


c/> 


c/} 

O 






2 


5 




5 


a s 




s 


O 

X 






5 


o 

a! 


Q 


U 


O 

06 





r- vo 

On -vT 



CO 



in 



CM 









C3 


























es 






o 






< 




i-> 






se 




C5S 






in 
U 


>^ 


o 

CO 


i— 1 


1 




1 


on 


o 


b 


Q 


OB 


'3 


S 


«1 


e 


on 


on 




b 





Q 


u 



233 



_ c 



— as 
m r— 



o 
ro 
so 



rO 


^r 


SO CN 


o 




oo 


■"3- m 


ro 


CM 


■ — i 


pH TJ- 


O 



CN 

ro 



CM O 


CN CN 


SO 


oo r^ 


\0 ^H 


CN 


en 


in 


O 



ro 


O 


in t-~ 


in 


Tl" 


CM 


Tf — 1 


CN 




i — 1 


co rn 


00 



- 
< 



-J 

W E © 
-> PG o> 

^ 3 2 

S c ^ 

as u S 

C H g 

fa U 3 

02 2 ? 

z 5 £ 

25- 

< U - 
= B -' 

« s 
c 
- 
< 

— 

- 
< 



c 



OJ « 



o. 
'1 

c 

is 



cr c 



— p-« CN 



IT) CN 

— ' CN 



3* — . ^~ 



~ >0 TJ- 



O i-H co O O 



ON 



* 






3! 


-h 00 


0\ 


*~ 


CN 


CN 



CN TT SO CN ro 



O CN O O SO 



O -^ Os O CN 
CN 



— ' O — I O SO 



ro 



O O O O oo 



CN OS CO i— c CO 

<-! CO 



— i m r- CN CN 



0\ 



O 

in 



r I 
CN 



cn r- cn ^h o 



CO 00 OS 00 
CN 



oo 



2 c! 3 



oo ro Os Os in 


t 


^h oo O ii rr 


r- 


^H ^H CN 


m 



CM 



m cn 


r~ 


t 


so O in co -h 


m 


r- 


CO CN 


«o 


in 


in -h CN 


Cs 


00 



SO 
SO 



CN 

Os 



C4 






c-j 

so 

SO 



O — ' O O i-h 



00 CO ^t 
i CN 



CO •— I O t— i 



co oo o r- 

^h CN 



so oo cn r- 



Cl H rt ^f 



p- 1 co so 
CN CN 



CN IT) CO CN 



m oo in Os 



oo pH OS CN 

CO pH 



OS SO CN OO 

CN CN CO Tt 

CN pH 



o o »t o 



SO 



00 



CN 

CM 



o 

SO 



O O H H 



CN CO O CO 



CO OS so OS 



CN CO CO ^h 



^ CN 


in 


co ■>* -a- — > 


CN 


■t 


OO 


ph in r- 


^r 


cn 


CJ 







O O CO CO 



^h O so co 

CO -H 



co r- — i -«a- 



in •-> os in 

.— i ro 



r- p- i ro Os 
i-H so cn cn 



o 
m 



f» 


r- 


cn in oo 


CN 


C-J 




^h t~- ro 


ro 



o 

SO 



O 
CO 



p- 1 t— i ro 









■s 


















n 
















2 








9 


-< 




o 

r- 


9 




















P-H 




<N 













ro 






— 


F 


45 


U 


— 




cl 






U 

c 

O 

p9 
c2 






O 


CM 




c^ 


U 


a 






u 


CM 


"5) <u 

5 < 






2 


■a 

= 
a: 




w 

"V. 

5 




'u 

£ 




< 


u 




2 


§ 
55 


c 
c 

'£ 


Sj 

a 


X 

5 


5 

>. 

O 

PL, 


'u 

X 

5 


T3 

X 



< 




-0 

Q 


Q 


l-H 


s 
S 


5 





-5 ■* 3 5 "2 



o 

H 



234 



© * 



« 



cm >/-> co cn oo 
rt vo >/-> r- •— i 
co 



o 

IT) 



a 


CM O 


cm 


O 


M3 00 


■<f 


o> 


-3- co 


c~ 



in 



CN 

so 



r) 


CO 


uo 


r~ 


. — i 


CO 


cm 


i — i 


co 



O 



w 

H 
H 
< 






£ S I 

5 S © 

^ VJ ?rj 

O H g 

r*> NN 1—5 

^ BJ 7 

HH h-H S^ 

tf Q S 

^ w ^ 

H ffi ^ 

£ z " 

o 

H 
< 









s- 


(/) 


o> 


Q 


35 




o 


■a 


0> 


o> 


Of) 


a 



c 

■u 



s 



?H2 

o> 
OS 



Oi 

X 



_c 
"u 
09 

Ol 

X 

>> 

o 

a 

Ol 

3 

al c 

~ Ol 



cm co o ^ o 



■^r ^h o 



^ N K1 Tf O 



O CO O O i-h 



OO CO O O O —i 



CM 00 00 



oo 



CM 



^h >n <-h o i-h 



r- co o tt co 

00 



o >/-> — > r- o 



On 



r~ oo r- 

CO i— I 



r-~ o co 



o\ •* vo 

00 — I 



so 

CM 



cm 

SO 



O 
CM 



OS 

so 

CO 



On 



ro 



cm 

o 
cm 



CM CO 

so 



co r- <— i —i 



r- co m r- 


i — i 


CO 


co SO — < 


o 


CN 




-3- 


«— i ON >— i 


CM 

cm 



o\ so r- co .-H 



(« t— I ,-H .— C 



so 


f f ^ 


o> 


o 


o 


io 


>/o >r> cm 


CN 


cm 


"3" 



■o 

01 
















B 

'5 


OO CM 


SO 


so 


oo 


o 
o 


cm r- 

CT\ so 


o 
so 



so SO co tj- — ' 



co tj- «n vo cm 

O i— i i— i 



o 



c- r- cm 


SO 


T ITl V~> 


l/-> 


»— H i-H 


CO 



oo 
oo 
O 



O 
cm 



ro 

CM 



CM 

cj 



so 


CN CO 


IT) 


CO 


CI 


CM -H 


CO 


SO 


' — 1 






CJ 



o 


co 


CO 


r~ 


co 


SO 


o 


O oo 


co 


r~ 


SO 


*» 


^r 


oo 


r- 


o 

CO 


r- 

. — i 


m ^-i 


\D 


o 

CJ 



S3 — < •* 

S? -a ^ * 



2 5 a i a 



M _ i 

t! u * 
•r o> > % 
i ^ -o | 
•S a co ca 

fifflUU 



so 

CM 



5 S 



< 

CM 



Q O 



2S 






c 


oe 




r-i 


d 
a 




o 


CN 


42 




o 






e 

o 




u 


c 


Q 


if-. 


c 

3 


5 


U 


-J 




s 


CQ 



235 



y 
_ c 



o 


3\ vo cNi r- 


CO 




OC CN O OC 


■ — i 


CI 


CO 


r~ 



v-i *-> co cn ^- t-- o\ 
oo >— < cn vo m rr cn 






H 
H 
< 



S g 

r_-> ■* 



o 
^. a ss 



IT 



< 

X 

c 
- 

< 

— 

- 

Q 
< 



u 
2 



c 
a 



5 a 






M 

5 



s 

c 



B 

'Z. 

V 



(S 



c 



M "O 



s 



=4 u 



ro o ^h o O 



^r o o o o o o 



OO >/-> .— i v£> \0 






— o o o o ^ 



CN 



- o ts pi m 



C r-< 



N O N 



o o o o o 



oo t~- o >/-> o 



n a -< rt o 



h Oi h >0 oo 
n M co 



^. CS rt o oo 



3 



in "-h ^h cn O ro O 



O O O VO o o o 



ir> O O ^h ^h cN ro 



O O O oo co CO O 



i-h O O CT\ "* Tf O 



Tf ij n N O « 



o 



iri 


-* O 0\ 


o 


-h m 


<- i 


— ' TT CN 


o 


cn 




~^ 


CO 





On 



o^HTrr^t^ocN ,-h 



tT O^ Oi M n 



Ox 
M2 



o 

00 



oo 

On 



-r 


0C 


"t « H ^ 


O CN 


oo 


, — 1 


\o 




o 


CN rH 


'""' 




\D 


o 



00 Q\ 

^ O 



o 


O 


o 


O N « 


VO 


ri 


IT) 


, — i 


T 


1-1 




<N 






-r 


CN 



co 


-r 


o 


o> 


•-H CO 


-r 


« 


r^ 


,— i 


to 








in 






r~ 


-1- 
CO 



n 



O 
















C3 


c 






o 








■n 


"S 


E- 


e 




<■< 




Ill 






3 

> 


u 


CO 


u 


~ 


— 


-* 




B 


a 


u 


L. 


■a 


a 


^ 






13 


i- 


p 

o 










3 








,J~ 


— 


- 


^ , - 


c- 


3i 






a 






1 


a 

o 


H 
O 


1= 

Q 


d 


-^ 


> 


-^ 


'j 


ea 





r3 

5C 


1 — » 


2 


CO 



o 




H 


'S, 




c3 


o 




B 


o 


zc 


u 



236 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS OF INFRACTION AND 
CRIMINAL CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1980-81 — 1989-90 



Filings 




1,800,000 



1,200,000 



Non-Motor Vehicle 



Dispositions 



600,000 



80-81 



81-82 



82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 



Infraction cases are included with criminal motor vehicle 
cases here to show a meaningful trend before and after 
1986, when the infraction case category was first created. 
Almost all infractions would have been criminal motor 
vehicle cases before September 1, 1986. Motor vehicle 
misdemeanor and infraction case filings together in- 



creased by 1.8% from 1988-89 to 1989-90, to a total of 
1,166,325, of which 669,667 were infractions. Disposi- 
tions of such cases increased by 2.0%, to 1,134,277. 
Criminal non-motor vehicle filings in district court 
increased by 8.3% to 603,328. 



237 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 





July 1, 


1989 -- June 30, 


1990 






Filed 




Dispositions 






Waiver 


Other 


Total Dispositions 


District 1 










Camden 


454 


126 


305 


431 


Chowan 


538 


304 


281 


585 


Currituck 


823 


231 


887 


1,118 


Dare 


3,655 


1,078 


2,249 


3,327 


Gates 


468 


78 


356 


434 


Pasquotank 


1,712 


389 


1,124 


1,513 


Perquimans 


472 


124 


347 


471 


District Totals 


8,122 


2,330 


5,549 


7,879 


District 2 










Beaufort 


2,984 


621 


2,112 


2,733 


Hyde 


446 


79 


351 


430 


Martin 


1,552 


336 


1,026 


1,362 


Tyrrell 


615 


115 


529 


644 


Washington 


543 


161 


339 


500 


District Totals 


6,140 


1,312 


4,357 


5,669 


District 3 










Carteret 


4,094 


853 


2,802 


3,655 


Craven 


5,655 


916 


4,632 


5,548 


Pamlico 


368 


82 


221 


303 


Pitt 


9,695 


1,286 


8,360 


9,646 


District Totals 


19,812 


3,137 


16,015 


19,152 


District 4 










Duplin 


3,034 


551 


1,934 


2,485 


Jones 


414 


64 


333 


397 


Onslow 


7,320 


1,449 


5,387 


6,836 


Sampson 


4,371 


1,091 


3,155 


4,246 


District Totals 


15,139 


3,155 


10,809 


13,964 


District 5 










New Hanover 


9,038 


1,841 


7,079 


8,920 


Pender 


2,168 


369 


1,750 


2,119 


District Totals 


11,206 


2,210 


8,829 


11,039 


District 6A 










Halifax 


3,885 


801 


2,759 


3,560 


District 6B 










Bertie 


935 


192 


758 


950 


Hertford 


1,738 


371 


1,376 


1,747 


Northampton 


1,220 


222 


861 


1,083 


District Totals 


3,893 


785 


2,995 


3,780 



238 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 

DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Dispositions 



Filed 



District 7 




Edgecombe 


5,072 


Nash 


6,654 


Wilson 


4,172 


District Totals 


15,898 


District 8 




Greene 


931 


Lenoir 


5,507 


Wayne 


5,983 


District Totals 


12,421 


District 9 




Franklin 


2,463 


Granville 


2,469 


Person 


2,374 


Vance 


3,440 


Warren 


907 


District Totals 


11,653 


District 10 




Wake 


44,673 


District 11 




Harnett 


5,569 


Johnston 


6,870 


Lee 


4,371 


District Totals 


16,810 


District 12 




Cumberland 


21,421 


District 13 




Bladen 


3,086 


Brunswick 


3,711 


Columbus 


3,796 


District Totals 


10,593 


District 14 




Durham 


13,022 


District 15A 




Alamance 


8,390 



Waiver 

1,428 
2,158 
1,197 

4,783 



155 

848 

1,189 

2,192 



385 
602 
332 
640 
156 

2,115 



4,940 



871 
983 
890 

2,744 



3,351 



510 
907 

404 

1,821 



2,455 



1,777 



Other 


Total Dispositions 


2,725 


4,153 


4,021 


6,179 


2,310 


3,507 



9,056 



645 
4,247 
3,525 

8,417 



1,832 
1,801 
1,937 
2,700 
627 

8,897 



35,022 



3,842 
5,067 
3,280 

12,189 



17,490 



2,319 
3,246 
2,970 

8,535 



9,517 



6,069 



13,839 



800 
5,095 
4,714 

10,609 



2,217 
2,403 
2,269 
3,340 
783 

11,012 



39,962 



4,713 
6,050 
4,170 

14,933 



20,841 



2,829 
4,153 
3,374 

10,356 



11,972 



7,846 



239 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Dispositions 





Filed 


Waiver 


Other 


Total Dispositions 


District 15B 










Chatham 


2,850 


485 


2,412 


2,897 


Orange 


5,637 


1,046 


4,565 


5,611 


District Totals 


8,487 


1,531 


6,977 


8,508 


District 16A 










Hoke 


1,950 


460 


1,442 


1,902 


Scotland 


2,248 


405 


1,728 


2,133 


District Totals 


4,198 


865 


3,170 


4,035 


District 16B 










Robeson 


8,060 


1,183 


5,072 


6,255 


District 17A 










Caswell 


1,026 


155 


823 


978 


Rockingham 


5,072 


872 


3,944 


4,816 


District Totals 


6,098 


1,027 


4,767 


5,794 


District 17B 










Stokes 


2,275 


508 


1,719 


2,227 


Surry 


4,194 


971 


2,833 


3,804 


District Totals 


6,469 


1,479 


4,552 


6,031 


District 18 










Guilford 


30,881 


3,527 


26,455 


29,982 


District 19A 










Cabarrus 


6,954 


1,621 


5,421 


7,042 


District 19B 










Montgomery 


2,896 


371 


2,201 


2,572 


Randolph 


6,382 


1,036 


4,951 


5,987 


District Totals 


9,278 


1,407 


7,152 


8,559 


District 19C 










Rowan 


6,957 


1,468 


5,036 


6,504 


District 20 










Anson 


1,535 


269 


1,352 


1,621 


Moore 


4,834 


929 


3,411 


4,340 


Richmond 


3,124 


467 


2,407 


2,874 


Stanly 


2,550 


605 


2,001 


2,606 


Union 


5,197 


1,057 


4,093 


5,150 


District Totals 


17,240 


3,327 


13,264 


16,591 



240 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Filed 




Dispositions 






Waiver 


Other 


Total Dispositions 


District 21 










Forsyth 


19,661 


3,198 


14,475 


17,673 


District 22 










Alexander 


1,150 


175 


1,014 


1,189 


Davidson 


8,954 


1,905 


6,919 


8,824 


Davie 


1,635 


344 


1,231 


1,575 


Iredell 


6,920 


1,699 


4,445 


6,144 


District Totals 


18,659 


4,123 


13,609 


17,732 


District 23 










Alleghany 


528 


153 


367 


520 


Ashe 


828 


183 


588 


771 


Wilkes 


3,611 


764 


2,406 


3,170 


Yadkin 


1,712 


348 


1,346 


1,694 


District Totals 


6,679 


1,448 


4,707 


6,155 


District 24 










Avery 


897 


211 


611 


822 


Madison 


1,530 


498 


862 


1,360 


Mitchell 


828 


221 


496 


717 


Watauga 


2,552 


847 


1,572 


2,419 


Yancey 


960 


392 


427 


819 


District Totals 


6,767 


2,169 


3,968 


6,137 


District 25 










Burke 


4,890 


1,262 


3,268 


4,530 


Caldwell 


5,774 


843 


4,717 


5,560 


Catawba 


7,599 


1,379 


5,380 


6,759 


District Totals 


18,263 


3,484 


13,365 


16,849 


District 26 










Mecklenburg 


45,074 


12,789 


25,746 


38,535 


District 27A 










Gaston 


13,698 


2,207 


10,517 


12,724 


District 27B 










Cleveland 


5,729 


1,227 


4,038 


5,265 


Lincoln 


3,038 


671 


2,309 


2,980 


District Totals 


8,767 


1,898 


6,347 


8,245 


District 28 










Buncombe 


11,383 


3,672 


7,431 


11,103 



241 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



District 29 




Henderson 


4,405 


McDowell 


1,867 


Polk 


701 


Rutherford 


4,284 


Transylvania 


1,025 


District Totals 


12,282 


District 30 




Cherokee 


1,066 


Clay 


309 


Graham 


308 


Haywood 


2,432 


Jackson 


1,453 


Macon 


1,260 


Swain 


897 


District Totals 


7,725 


State Totals 


496,658 



July 1, 


1989 -- June 30, 


1990 

Dispositions 






Filed 


Waiver 


Other 


Total 


Dispositions 


4,405 


890 


3,603 




4,493 


1,867 


573 


1,111 




1,684 


701 


207 


478 




685 


4,284 


1,064 


2,825 




3,889 


1,025 


302 


692 




994 



3,036 8,709 11,745 



1,082 

280 

264 

2,072 

1,314 

1,184 

804 

7,000 

459,612 



282 


800 


53 


227 


107 


157 


458 


1,614 


298 


1,016 


288 


896 


270 


534 


1,756 


5,244 


97,123 


362,489 



242 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 1 














Camden 


19 


192 


211 


178 


84.4% 


33 


Chowan 


147 


1,125 


1,272 


1,131 


88.9% 


141 


Currituck 


60 


824 


884 


760 


86.0% 


124 


Dare 


487 


3,885 


4,372 


3,692 


84.4% 


680 


Gates 


35 


410 


445 


402 


90.3% 


43 


Pasquotank 


250 


2,872 


3,122 


2,868 


91.9% 


254 


Perquimans 


63 


521 


584 


508 


87.0% 


76 


District Totals 


1,061 


9,829 


10,890 


9,539 


87.6% 


1,351 


District 2 














Beaufort 


239 


3,432 


3,671 


3,384 


92.2% 


287 


Hyde 


41 


498 


539 


483 


89.6% 


56 


Martin 


109 


1,762 


1,871 


1,664 


88.9% 


207 


Tyrrell 


38 


313 


351 


336 


95.7% 


15 


Washington 


77 


873 


950 


893 


94.0% 


57 


District Totals 


504 


6,878 


7,382 


6,760 


91.6% 


622 


District 3 














Carteret 


1,203 


6,549 


7,752 


6,225 


80.3% 


1,527 


Craven 


1,604 


8,184 


9,788 


8,110 


82.9% 


1,678 


Pamlico 


183 


765 


948 


845 


89.1% 


103 


Pitt 


2,385 


15,552 


17,937 


15,414 


85.9% 


2,523 


District Totals 


5,375 


31,050 


36,425 


30,594 


84.0% 


5,831 


District 4 














Duplin 


488 


3,359 


3,847 


3,333 


86.6% 


514 


Jones 


53 


663 


716 


620 


86.6% 


96 


Onslow 


1,733 


12,540 


14,273 


12,021 


84.2% 


2,252 


Sampson 


682 


4,370 


5,052 


4,450 


88.1% 


602 


District Totals 


2,956 


20,932 


23,888 


20,424 


85.5% 


3,464 


District 5 














New Hanover 


3,152 


17,827 


20,979 


17,385 


82.9% 


3,594 


Pender 


284 


1,984 


2,268 


1,917 


84.5% 


351 


District Totals 


3,436 


19,811 


23,247 


19,302 


83.0% 


3,945 


District 6A 














Halifax t 


870 


5,973 


6,843 


6,103 


89.2% 


740 


District 6B 














Bertie 


121 


1,652 


1,773 


1,604 


90.5% 


169 


Hertford 


277 


2,666 


2,943 


2,694 


91.5% 


249 


Northampton 


177 


1,592 


1,769 


1,576 


89.1% 


193 


District Totals 


575 


5,910 


6,485 
243 


5,874 


90.6% 


611 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Begin 
Pending 

7/1/89 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 



1,890 
2,474 
2,054 





Total 


iled 


Caseload 


7,530 


9,420 


10,370 


12,844 


7,824 


9,878 







End 




% Caseload 


Pending 


osed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


7,620 


80.9% 


1,800 


9,982 


77.7% 


2,862 


7,211 


73.0% 


2,667 



District Totals 



6,418 



25,724 



32,142 



24,813 



77.2% 



7,329 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



146 
986 

1,782 



897 
5,707 
8,242 



1,043 

6,693 

10,024 



935 

5,415 
8,040 



89.6% 
80.9% 
80.2% 



108 
1,278 
1,984 



District Totals 



2,914 



14,846 



17,760 



14,390 



81.0% 



3,370 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



425 
324 
322 
808 
190 



2,829 
3,025 
2,778 
5,810 
1,428 



3,254 
3,349 
3,100 
6,618 
1,618 



2,722 
2,932 
2,682 
5,812 
1,423 



83.7% 
87.5% 
86.5% 
87.8% 
87.9% 



532 
417 
418 
806 
195 



District Totals 



2,069 



15,870 



17,939 



15,571 



86.8% 



2,368 



District 10 

Wake 



9,650 



39,107 



48,757 



37,784 



77.5% 



10,973 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 



1,109 
750 
607 



5,933 
6,999 
6,060 



7,042 
7,749 
6,667 



5,911 
6,676 
5,963 



83.9% 
86.2% 
89.4% 



1,131 

1,073 

704 



District Totals 



2,466 



18,992 



21,458 



18,550 



86.4% 



2,908 



District 12 

Cumberland 



4,670 



23,539 



28,209 



22,631 



80.2% 



5,578 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 



484 
734 
524 



3,326 
3,808 
4,353 



3,810 
4,542 
4,877 



3,201 
3,995 
4,311 



84.0% 



609 
547 
566 



District Totals 



1,742 



11,487 



13,229 



11,507 



87.0% 



1,722 



District 14 

Durham 



5,161 



19,472 



24,633 



18,580 



75.4% 



6,053 



District 15A 

Alamance 



1,400 



9,100 



10,500 



9,048 



86.2% 



1,452 



244 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 15B 














Chatham 


492 


2,524 


3,016 


2,678 


88.8% 


338 


Orange 


684 


5,528 


6,212 


5,320 


85.6% 


892 


District Totals 


1,176 


8,052 


9,228 


7,998 


86.7% 


1,230 


District 16A 














Hoke 


287 


2,367 


2,654 


2,238 


84.3% 


416 


Scotland 


640 


4,900 


5,540 


4,885 


88.2% 


655 


District Totals 


927 


7,267 


8,194 


7,123 


86.9% 


1,071 


District 16B 














Robeson 


2,354 


14,138 


16,492 


13,755 


83.4% 


2,737 


District 17A 














Caswell 


81 


1,165 


1,246 


1,114 


89.4% 


132 


Rockingham 


733 


6,401 


7,134 


6,306 


88.4% 


828 


District Totals 


814 


7,566 


8,380 


7,420 


88.5% 


960 


District 17B 














Stokes 


268 


1,882 


2,150 


1,835 


85.3% 


315 


Surry 


632 


3,983 


4,615 


3,865 


83.7% 


750 


District Totals 


900 


5,865 


6,765 


5,700 


84.3% 


1,065 


District 18 














Guilford 


18,285 


42,470 


60,755 


41,118 


67.7% 


19,637 


District 19A 














Cabarrus 


1,007 


6,883 


7,890 


6,865 


87.0% 


1,025 


District 19B 














Montgomery 


465 


2,843 


3,308 


2,865 


86.6% 


443 


Randolph 


1,572 


7,529 


9,101 


7,552 


83.0% 


1,549 


District Totals 


2,037 


10,372 


12,409 


10,417 


83.9% 


1,992 


District 19C 














Rowan 


777 


6,659 


7,436 


6,435 


86.5% 


1,001 


District 20 














Anson 


256 


2,231 


2,487 


2,197 


88.3% 


290 


Moore 


889 


5,785 


6,674 


5,693 


85.3% 


981 


Richmond 


565 


5,100 


5,665 


4,999 


88.2% 


666 


Stanly 


299 


3,400 


3,699 


3,309 


89.5% 


390 


Union 


629 


6,224 


6,853 


6,006 


87.6% 


847 


District Totals 


2,638 


22,740 


25,378 


22,204 


87.5% 


3,174 



245 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 21 














Forsyth 


2,834 


26,211 


29,045 


25,637 


88.3% 


3,408 


District 22 














Alexander 


300 


1,840 


2,140 


1,760 


82.2% 


380 


Davidson 


1,151 


10,120 


11,271 


9,588 


85.1% 


1,683 


Davie 


292 


1,412 


1,704 


1,399 


82.1% 


305 


Iredell 


1,696 


9,192 


10,888 


9,368 


86.0% 


1,520 


District Totals 


3,439 


22,564 


26,003 


22,115 


85.0% 


3,888 


District 23 














Alleghany 


77 


565 


642 


569 


88.6% 


73 


Ashe 


90 


994 


1,084 


954 


88.0% 


130 


Wilkes 


682 


4,155 


4,837 


3,998 


82.7% 


839 


Yadkin 


122 


1,148 


1,270 


1,143 


90.0% 


127 


District Totals 


971 


6,862 


7,833 


6,664 


85.1% 


1,169 


District 24 














Avery 


192 


919 


1,111 


801 


72.1% 


310 


Madison 


202 


722 


924 


670 


72.5% 


254 


Mitchell 


65 


498 


563 


420 


74.6% 


143 


Watauga 


342 


2,685 


3,027 


2,569 


84.9% 


458 


Yancey 


117 


707 


824 


647 


78.5% 


177 


District Totals 


918 


5,531 


6,449 


5,107 


79.2% 


1,342 


District 25 














Burke 


692 


5,365 


6,057 


5,314 


87.7% 


743 


Caldwell 


665 


4,526 


5,191 


4,305 


82.9% 


886 


Catawba 


1,229 


8,949 


10,178 


8,532 


83.8% 


1,646 


District Totals 


2,586 


18,840 


21,426 


18,151 


84.7% 


3,275 


District 26 














Mecklenburg 


8,361 


47,199 


55,560 


44,905 


80.8% 


10,655 


District 27A 














Gaston 


5,061 


16,069 


21,130 


14,745 


69.8% 


6,385 


District 27B 














Cleveland 


843 


6,083 


6,926 


5,969 


86.2% 


957 


Lincoln 


492 


3,711 


4,203 


3,731 


88.8% 


472 


District Totals 


1,335 


9,794 


11,129 


9,700 


87.2% 


1,429 


District 28 














Buncombe 


2,629 


17,354 


19,983 


16,914 


84.6% 


3,069 



246 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/89 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/90 


District 29 














Henderson 


893 


5,122 


6,015 


5,142 


85.5% 


873 


McDowell 


384 


2,406 


2,790 


2,271 


81.4% 


519 


Polk 


110 


694 


804 


700 


87.1% 


104 


Rutherford 


1,024 


4,654 


5,678 


4,608 


81.2% 


1,070 


Transylvania 


242 


1,814 


2,056 


1,778 


86.5% 


278 


District Totals 


2,653 


14,690 


17,343 


14,499 


83.6% 


2,844 


District 30 














Cherokee 


263 


1,174 


1,437 


1,180 


82.1% 


257 


Clay 


30 


340 


370 


308 


83.2% 


62 


Graham 


56 


488 


544 


430 


79.0% 


114 


Haywood 


275 


2,902 


3,177 


2,816 


88.6% 


361 


Jackson 


172 


1,236 


1,408 


1,223 


86.9% 


185 


Macon 


100 


949 


1,049 


920 


87.7% 


129 


Swain 


86 


593 


679 


619 


91.2% 


60 


District Totals 


982 


7,682 


8,664 


7,496 


86.5% 


1,168 


State Totals 


113,951 


603,328 


717,279 


586,438 


81.8% 


130,841 



247 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT 
CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990 



MISDEMEANORS 



Other (51,046) 



Waiver (58,917) 



Dismissal (166,550) 




Guilty Plea (209,549) 



Not Guilty Plea (Trial) 
(41,636) 



FELONY PROBABLE CAUSE MATTERS 



Superseding Indictment 
(28,177) 



Heard and Bound Over 

(7,153) 




Probable Cause Not 
Found (3,043) 



Probable Cause 

Hearing Waived 

(20,367) 



The waivers shown in the upper chart are waivers of trial 
in worthless check cases where the defendant pleads 
guilty before a magistrate. The "Other" category includes 
changes of venue, waivers of extradition, findings of no 
probable cause at initial appearance, and dismissals by 



the court. The proportion of felony cases disposed by 
superseding indictment continues to increase; these 
dispositions totalled 34.1% of felony dispositions in 
1986-87, 38.9% in 1987-88, 42.1% in 1988-89, and 48.0% 
in 1989-90. 



248 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Felony 





Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 1 


















Camden 


1 


54 


18 


26 


32 


40 


7 


178 


Chowan 


76 


478 


64 


113 


191 


64 


145 


1,131 


Currituck 


42 


346 





37 


141 


169 


25 


760 


Dare 


205 


865 


1 


226 


998 


948 


449 


3,692 


Gates 


22 


131 


1 


55 


66 


63 


64 


402 


Pasquotank 


201 


1,108 


45 


371 


699 


190 


254 


2,868 


Perquimans 


14 


189 


11 


73 


137 


53 


31 


508 


District Totals 


561 


3,171 


140 


901 


2,264 


1,527 


975 


9,539 


% of Total 


5.9% 


33.2% 


1.5% 


9.4% 


23.7% 


16.0% 


10.2% 


100.0% 


District 2 


















Beaufort 


305 


1,219 


324 


370 


299 


433 


434 


3,384 


Hyde 


6 


192 


27 


93 


59 


61 


45 


483 


Martin 


259 


612 


38 


223 


116 


216 


200 


1,664 


Tyrrell 


9 


82 


49 


51 


44 


34 


67 


336 


Washington 


116 


235 


65 


179 


73 


69 


156 


893 


District Totals 


695 


2,340 


503 


916 


591 


813 


902 


6,760 


% of Total 


10.3% 


34.6% 


7.4% 


13.6% 


8.7% 


12.0% 


13.3% 


100.0% 


District 3 


















Carteret 


501 


1,628 


711 


257 


2,170 


470 


488 


6,225 


Craven 


1,329 


2,430 


222 


479 


2,247 


614 


789 


8,110 


Pamlico 


36 


310 


68 


43 


229 


89 


70 


845 


Pitt 


3,565 


5,145 


558 


865 


3,472 


607 


1,202 


15,414 


District Totals 


5,431 


9,513 


1,559 


1,644 


8,118 


1,780 


2,549 


30,594 


% of Total 


17.8% 


31.1% 


5.1% 


5.4% 


26.5% 


5.8% 


8.3% 


100.0% 


District 4 


















Duplin 


603 


1,314 


30 


97 


513 


304 


472 


3,333 


Jones 


24 


187 


3 


31 


123 


158 


94 


620 


Onslow 


2,535 


4,341 


195 


464 


2,445 


746 


1,295 


12,021 


Sampson 


803 


1,607 


40 


113 


918 


138 


831 


4,450 


District Totals 


3,965 


7,449 


268 


705 


3,999 


1,346 


2,692 


20,424 


% of Total 


19.4% 


36.5% 


1.3% 


3.5% 


19.6% 


6.6% 


13.2% 


100.0% 


District 5 


















New Hanover 


1,673 


7,198 


482 


1,162 


3,374 


1,128 


2,368 


17,385 


Pender 


71 


559 


49 


227 


424 


207 


380 


1,917 


District Totals 


1,744 


7,757 


531 


1,389 


3,798 


1,335 


2,748 


19,302 


% of Total 


9.0% 


40.2% 


2.8% 


7.2% 


19.7% 


6.9% 


14.2% 


100.0% 



249 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

















Felony 






Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guiltv Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 6A 


















Halifax 


335 


2,322 


218 


525 


1,660 


578 


465 


6,103 


% of Total 


5.5% 


38.0% 


3.6% 


8.6% 


27.2% 


9.5% 


7.6% 


100.0% 


District 6B 


















Bertie 


50 


563 


11 


216 


305 


225 


234 


1,604 


Hertford 


151 


1,192 


65 


162 


488 


217 


419 


2,694 


Northampton 


56 


542 


66 


115 


356 


241 


200 


1,576 


District Totals 


257 


2,297 


142 


493 


1,149 


683 


853 


5,874 


% of Total 


4.4% 


39.1% 


2.4% 


8.4% 


19.6% 


11.6% 


14.5% 


100.0% 


District 7 


















Edgecombe 


905 


2,514 


266 


750 


1,625 


362 


1,198 


7,620 


Nash 


1,935 


3,291 


311 


766 


2,333 


361 


985 


9,982 


Wilson 


937 


2,418 


256 


488 


1,908 


260 


944 


7,211 


District Totals 


3,777 


8,223 


833 


2,004 


5,866 


983 


3,127 


24,813 


% of Total 


15.2% 


33.1% 


3.4% 


8.1% 


23.6% 


4.0% 


12.6% 


100.0% 


District 8 


















Greene 


44 


317 


64 


56 


337 


56 


61 


935 


Lenoir 


445 


1,706 


38 


290 


2,088 


439 


409 


5,415 


Wayne 


1,324 


2,058 


65 


374 


3,136 


461 


622 


8,040 


District Totals 


1,813 


4,081 


167 


720 


5,561 


956 


1,092 


14,390 


% of Total 


12.6% 


28.4% 


1.2% 


5.0% 


38.6% 


6.6% 


7.6% 


100.0% 


District 9 


















Franklin 


333 


921 


150 


275 


526 


177 


340 


2,722 


Granville 


287 


1,067 


100 


353 


466 


292 


367 


2,932 


Person 


337 


761 


136 


286 


620 


181 


361 


2,682 


Vance 


460 


1,875 


350 


728 


1,088 


649 


662 


5,812 


Warren 


52 


409 


37 


259 


298 


192 


176 


1,423 


District Totals 


1,469 


5,033 


773 


1,901 


2,998 


1,491 


1,906 


15,571 


% of Total 


9.4% 


32.3% 


5.0% 


12.2% 


19.3% 


9.6% 


12.2% 


100.0% 


District 10 


















Wake 


6,133 


9,843 


2,979 


2,123 


10,793 


2,042 


3,871 


37,784 


% of Total 


16.2% 


26.1% 


7.9% 


5.6% 


28.6% 


5.4% 


10.2% 


100.0% 


District 11 


















Harnett 


860 


1,898 


169 


214 


1,560 


674 


536 


5,911 


Johnston 


912 


2,487 


230 


446 


1,218 


824 


559 


6,676 


Lee 


720 


2,071 


319 


369 


1,535 


471 


478 


5,963 


District Totals 


2,492 


6,456 


718 


1,029 


4,313 


1,969 


1,573 


18,550 


% of Total 


13.4% 


34.8% 


3.9% 


5.5% 


23.3% 


10.6% 


8.5% 


100.0% 



250 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

















Felony 






Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 12 


















Cumberland 


4,133 


7,541 


83 


1,273 


7,323 


633 


1,645 


22,631 


% of Total 


18.3% 


33.3% 


0.4% 


5.6% 


32.4% 


2.8% 


7.3% 


100.0% 


District 13 


















Bladen 


374 


1,085 


40 


372 


805 


383 


142 


3,201 


Brunswick 


244 


1,267 


305 


420 


1,242 


226 


291 


3,995 


Columbus 


851 


1,551 


26 


345 


974 


372 


192 


4,311 


District Totals 


1,469 


3,903 


371 


1,137 


3,021 


981 


625 


11,507 


% of Total 


12.8% 


33.9% 


3.2% 


9.9% 


26.3% 


8.5% 


5.4% 


100.0% 


District 14 


















Durham 


1,270 


7,562 


76 


994 


4,747 


2,222 


1,709 


18,580 


% of Total 


6.8% 


40.7% 


0.4% 


5.3% 


25.5% 


12.0% 


9.2% 


100.0% 


District 15A 


















Alamance 


637 


3,845 


303 


602 


1,735 


448 


1,478 


9,048 


% of Total 


7.0% 


42.5% 


3.3% 


6.7% 


19.2% 


5.0% 


16.3% 


100.0% 


District 15B 


















Chatham 


152 


675 


59 


106 


649 


781 


256 


2,678 


Orange 


483 


1,774 


74 


262 


1,797 


346 


584 


5,320 


District Totals 


635 


2,449 


133 


368 


2,446 


1,127 


840 


7,998 


% of Total 


7.9% 


30.6% 


1.7% 


4.6% 


30.6% 


14.1% 


10.5% 


100.0% 


District 16A 


















Hoke 


351 


812 


10 


327 


427 


98 


213 


2,238 


Scotland 


640 


1,800 


57 


484 


1,057 


421 


426 


4,885 


District Totals 


991 


2,612 


67 


811 


1,484 


519 


639 


7,123 


% of Total 


13.9% 


36.7% 


0.9% 


11.4% 


20.8% 


7.3% 


9.0% 


100.0% 


District 16B 


















Robeson 


1,125 


5,624 


766 


1,369 


1,004 


1,721 


2,146 


13,755 


% of Total 


8.2% 


40.9% 


5.6% 


10.0% 


7.3% 


12.5% 


15.6% 


100.0% 


District 17A 


















Caswell 


72 


342 


64 


251 


185 


92 


108 


1,114 


Rockingham 


353 


2,187 


120 


1,102 


1,091 


621 


832 


6,306 


District Totals 


425 


2,529 


184 


1,353 


1,276 


713 


940 


7,420 


% of Total 


5.7% 


34.1% 


2.5% 


18.2% 


17.2% 


9.6% 


12.7% 


100.0% 


District 17B 


















Stokes 


186 


505 


38 


179 


390 


248 


289 


1,835 


Surry 


258 


1,263 


196 


350 


858 


386 


554 


3,865 


District Totals 


444 


1,768 


234 


529 


1,248 


634 


843 


5,700 


% of Total 


7.8% 


31.0% 


4.1% 


9.3% 


21.9% 


11.1% 


14.8% 


100.0% 



251 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Felony 





Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guiltv Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 18 


















Guilford 


1,083 


12,393 


1,789 


1,994 


17,759 


2,180 


3,920 


41,118 


% of Total 


2.6% 


30.1% 


4.4% 


4.8% 


43.2% 


5.3% 


9.5% 


100.0% 


District 19A 


















Cabarrus 


1,058 


1,753 


111 


802 


1,734 


316 


1,091 


6,865 


% of Total 


15.4% 


25.5% 


1.6% 


11.7% 


25.3% 


4.6% 


15.9% 


100.0% 


District 19B 


















Montgomery 


197 


774 


516 


255 


856 


44 


223 


2,865 


Randolph 


994 


2,897 


31 


587 


1,994 


158 


891 


7,552 


District Totals 


1,191 


3,671 


547 


842 


2,850 


202 


1,114 


10,417 


% of Total 


11.4% 


35.2% 


5.3% 


8.1% 


27.4% 


1.9% 


10.7% 


100.0% 


District 19C 


















Rowan 


489 


1,518 


91 


889 


1,768 


626 


1,054 


6,435 


% of Total 


7.6% 


23.6% 


1.4% 


13.8% 


27.5% 


9.7% 


16.4% 


100.0% 


District 20 


















Anson 


124 


453 


159 


528 


438 


282 


213 


2,197 


Moore 


762 


1,555 


357 


473 


982 


399 


1,165 


5,693 


Richmond 


410 


1,513 


90 


735 


1,116 


409 


726 


4,999 


Stanly 


408 


1,031 


134 


477 


522 


397 


340 


3,309 


Union 


794 


1,725 


200 


714 


1,210 


583 


780 


6,006 


District Totals 


2,498 


6,277 


940 


2,927 


4,268 


2,070 


3,224 


22,204 


% of Total 


11.3% 


28.3% 


4.2% 


13.2% 


19.2% 


9.3% 


14.5% 


100.0% 


District 21 


















Forsyth 


2,212 


9,132 





2,581 


7,438 


1,087 


3,187 


25,637 


% of Total 


8.6% 


35.6% 


0.0% 


10.1% 


29.0% 


4.2% 


12.4% 


100.0% 


District 22 


















Alexander 


103 


517 


5 


125 


610 


331 


69 


1,760 


Davidson 


281 


2,750 


142 


578 


4,680 


773 


384 


9,588 


Davie 


146 


344 


14 


223 


508 


95 


69 


1,399 


Iredell 


414 


3,214 


328 


427 


3,593 


698 


694 


9,368 


District Totals 


944 


6,825 


489 


1,353 


9,391 


1,897 


1,216 


22,115 


% of Total 


4.3% 


30.9% 


2.2% 


6.1% 


42.5% 


8.6% 


5.5% 


100.0% 


District 23 


















Alleghany 


39 


148 


38 


67 


166 


39 


72 


569 


Ashe 


98 


408 


37 


124 


146 


106 


35 


954 


Wilkes 


408 


1,456 


276 


503 


646 


364 


345 


3,998 


Yadkin 


104 


440 


36 


198 


160 


99 


106 


1,143 


District Totals 


649 


2,452 


387 


892 


1,118 


608 


558 


6,664 


% of Total 


9.7% 


36.8% 


5.8% 


13.4% 


16.8% 


9.1% 


8.4% 


100.0% 



252 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

















Felony 






Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 24 


















Avery 


81 


107 


66 


35 


315 


194 


3 


801 


Madison 


17 


139 


27 


34 


307 


71 


75 


670 


Mitchell 


31 


97 


35 


34 


117 


54 


52 


420 


Watauga 


419 


454 


160 


116 


841 


444 


135 


2,569 


Yancey 


49 


122 


32 


43 


195 


199 


7 


647 


District Totals 


597 


919 


320 


262 


1,775 


962 


272 


5,107 


% of Total 


11.7% 


18.0% 


6.3% 


5.1% 


34.8% 


18.8% 


5.3% 


100.0% 


District 25 


















Burke 


697 


1,803 


43 


272 


1,470 


542 


487 


5,314 


Caldwell 


448 


1,470 


233 


325 


868 


478 


483 


4,305 


Catawba 


885 


3,052 


152 


461 


2,110 


917 


955 


8,532 


District Totals 


2,030 


6,325 


428 


1,058 


4,448 


1,937 


1,925 


18,151 


% of Total 


11.2% 


34.8% 


2.4% 


5.8% 


24.5% 


10.7% 


10.6% 


100.0% 


District 26 


















Mecklenburg 


627 


11,268 


135 


1,663 


20,299 


9,740 


1,173 


44,905 


% of Total 


1.4% 


25.1% 


0.3% 


3.7% 


45.2% 


21.7% 


2.6% 


100.0% 


District 27A 


















Gaston 


497 


4,029 


302 


995 


5,826 


1,228 


1,868 


14,745 


% of Total 


3.4% 


27.3% 


2.0% 


6.7% 


39.5% 


8.3% 


12.7% 


100.0% 


District 27B 


















Cleveland 


457 


2,080 


177 


486 


1,550 


575 


644 


5,969 


Lincoln 


562 


1,051 


203 


163 


794 


583 


375 


3,731 


District Totals 


1,019 


3,131 


380 


649 


2,344 


1,158 


1,019 


9,700 


% of Total 


10.5% 


32.3% 


3.9% 


6.7% 


24.2% 


11.9% 


10.5% 


100.0% 


District 28 


















Buncombe 


2,714 


7,803 


223 


544 


3,439 


934 


1,257 


16,914 


% of Total 


16.0% 


46.1% 


1.3% 


3.2% 


20.3% 


5.5% 


7.4% 


100.0% 


District 29 


















Henderson 


454 


1,874 


475 


237 


1,595 


232 


275 


5,142 


McDowell 


141 


577 


237 


130 


655 


135 


396 


2,271 


Polk 


13 


282 


5 


50 


240 


59 


51 


700 


Rutherford 


369 


1,513 


358 


478 


1,338 


204 


348 


4,608 


Transylvania 


120 


653 


59 


78 


448 


158 


262 


1,778 


District Totals 


1,097 


4,899 


1,134 


973 


4,276 


788 


1,332 


14,499 


% of Total 


7.6% 


33.8% 


7.8% 


6.7% 


29.5% 


5.4% 


9.2% 


100.0% 



253 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Felony 





Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Gui 


Ity Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 30 


















Cherokee 


SO 


294 


13 


67 


394 


222 


110 


1,180 


Clay 


6 


84 


9 


23 


103 


72 


11 


308 


Graham 


7 


156 


2 


5 


108 


137 


15 


430 


Haywood 


165 


883 


140 


209 


927 


163 


329 


2,816 


Jackson 


37 


372 


35 


64 


404 


83 


228 


1,223 


Macon 


104 


237 


68 


27 


258 


89 


137 


920 


Swain 


12 


145 


74 


31 


229 


46 


82 


619 


District Totals 


411 


2,171 


341 


426 


2,423 


812 


912 


7,496 


% of Total 


5.5% 


29.0% 


4.5% 


5.7% 


32.3% 


10.8% 


12.2% 


100.0% 


State Totals 


58,917 


190,884 


18,665 


41,636 


166,550 


51,046 


58,740 


586,438 


% of Total 


10.0% 


32.5% 


3.2% 


7.1% 


28.4% 


8.7% 


10.0% 


100.0% 



254 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 







A 


iges of Peni 


ling Cases ( 


Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 1 




















Camden 


29 





1 


2 


1 





33 


60.3 


37.0 


Chowan 


119 


3 


5 


7 


7 





141 


72.1 


31.0 


Currituck 


101 


9 


6 


4 


4 





124 


66.9 


37.5 


Dare 


614 


20 


9 


24 


8 


5 


680 


51.9 


24.0 


Gates 


38 


4 


1 











43 


38.8 


29.0 


Pasquotank 


214 


7 


16 


13 


4 





254 


53.2 


23.0 


Perquimans 


67 


1 


6 


2 








76 


40.2 


24.0 


District Totals 


1,182 


44 


44 


52 


24 


5 


1,351 


54.7 


25.0 


% of Total 


87.5% 


3.3% 


3.3% 


3.8% 


1.8% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 2 




















Beaufort 


170 


13 


20 


57 


26 


1 


287 


128.7 


50.0 


Hyde 


55 





1 











56 


25.8 


31.0 


Martin 


113 


4 


17 


44 


26 


3 


207 


154.6 


65.0 


Tyrrell 


14 





1 











15 


32.4 


26.0 


Washington 


51 





2 


1 


3 





57 


59.1 


26.0 


District Totals 


403 


17 


41 


102 


55 


4 


622 


119.3 


38.0 


% of Total 


64.8% 


2.7% 


6.6% 


16.4% 


8.8% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






District 3 




















Carteret 


1,061 


125 


101 


154 


72 


14 


1,527 


102.1 


43.0 


Craven 


904 


190 


284 


225 


60 


15 


1,678 


112.4 


75.0 


Pamlico 


73 


5 


11 


11 


3 





103 


85.2 


47.0 


Pitt 


1,971 


193 


179 


140 


38 


2 


2,523 


64.1 


38.0 


District Totals 


4,009 


513 


575 


530 


173 


31 


5,831 


88.3 


47.0 


% of Total 


68.8% 


8.8% 


9.9% 


9.1% 


3.0% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 4 




















Duplin 


392 


44 


37 


21 


20 





514 


69.3 


40.0 


Jones 


66 


2 


10 


14 


4 





96 


102.8 


42.5 


Onslow 


1,625 


257 


186 


156 


28 





2,252 


73.2 


51.0 


Sampson 


488 


37 


38 


32 


7 





602 


65.0 


46.0 


District Totals 


2,571 


340 


271 


223 


59 





3,464 


72.0 


47.0 


% of Total 


74.2% 


9.8% 


7.8% 


6.4% 


1.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 5 




















New Hanover 


2,157 


239 


266 


375 


356 


201 


3,594 


178.0 


54.0 


Pender 


239 


11 


11 


35 


18 


37 


351 


202.4 


29.0 


District Totals 


2,396 


250 


277 


410 


374 


238 


3,945 


180.2 


50.0 


% of Total 


60.7% 


6.3% 


7.0% 


10.4% 


9.5% 


6.0% 


100.0% 






District 6A 




















Halifax 


611 


27 


31 


52 


18 


1 


740 


60.2 


23.0 


% of Total 


82.6% 


3.6% 


4.2% 


7.0% 


2.4% 


0.1% 


100.0% 







255 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 









Ages of Pend 


ing Cases (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


128 


17 


7 


12 


5 





169 


64.3 


25.0 


Hertford 


201 


9 


17 


18 


1 


3 


249 


64.5 


26.0 


Northampton 


167 


8 


11 


7 








193 


44.7 


19.0 


District Totals 


496 


34 


35 


37 


6 


3 


611 


58.2 


25.0 


% of Total 


81.2% 


5.6% 


5.7% 


6.1% 


1.0% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 7 




















Edgecombe 


1,040 


160 


206 


201 


148 


45 


1,800 


141.0 


67.5 


Nash 


1,631 


290 


314 


325 


203 


99 


2,862 


148.6 


73.0 


Wilson 


1,279 


280 


373 


471 


229 


35 


2,667 


149.1 


94.0 


District Totals 


3,950 


730 


893 


997 


580 


179 


7,329 


146.9 


75.0 


% of Total 


53.9% 


10.0% 


12.2% 


13.6% 


7.9% 


2.4% 


100.0% 






District 8 




















Greene 


70 


12 


12 


12 


2 





108 


86.4 


62.5 


Lenoir 


863 


121 


173 


107 


12 


2 


1,278 


79.4 


53.0 


Wayne 


1,293 


203 


238 


214 


36 





1,984 


86.1 


57.0 


District Totals 


2,226 


336 


423 


333 


50 


2 


3,370 


83.6 


54.0 


% of Total 


66.1% 


10.0% 


12.6% 


9.9% 


1.5% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 9 




















Franklin 


420 


36 


32 


21 


19 


4 


532 


80.9 


46.0 


Granville 


338 


19 


16 


19 


17 


8 


417 


83.8 


31.0 


Person 


291 


38 


26 


39 


5 


19 


418 


113.4 


34.0 


Vance 


470 


66 


62 


126 


38 


44 


806 


165.1 


67.0 


Warren 


153 


8 


12 


19 





3 


195 


87.1 


31.0 


District Totals 


1,672 


167 


148 


224 


79 


78 


2,368 


116.3 


46.0 


% of Total 


70.6% 


7.1% 


6.3% 


9.5% 


3.3% 


3.3% 


100.0% 






District 10 




















Wake 


4,877 


791 


1,074 


1,641 


1,144 


1,446 


10,973 


296.7 


115.0 


% of Total 


44.4% 


7.2% 


9.8% 


15.0% 


10.4% 


13.2% 


100.0% 






District 11 




















Harnett 


686 


87 


85 


184 


84 


5 


1,131 


119.4 


60.0 


Johnston 


720 


121 


104 


104 


24 





1,073 


83.8 


53.0 


Lee 


622 


34 


21 


18 


9 





704 


47.4 


30.0 


District Totals 


2,028 


242 


210 


306 


117 


5 


2,908 


88.9 


45.0 


% of Total 


69.7% 


8.3% 


7.2% 


10.5% 


4.0% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 12 




















Cumberland 


3,582 


544 


730 


492 


154 


76 


5,578 


102.0 


61.0 


% of Total 


64.2% 


9.8% 


13.1% 


8.8% 


2.8% 


1.4% 


100.0% 







256 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 









Ages of Pen< 


iing Cases ( 


Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 13 




















Bladen 


467 


18 


23 


73 


25 


3 


609 


82.3 


26.0 


Brunswick 


459 


27 


9 


19 


30 


3 


547 


67.5 


24.0 


Columbus 


458 


35 


49 


19 


3 


2 


566 


55.8 


31.0 


District Totals 


1,384 


80 


81 


111 


58 


8 


1,722 


68.9 


25.0 


% of Total 


80.4% 


4.6% 


4.7% 


6.4% 


3.4% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 14 




















Durham 


2,626 


415 


672 


952 


939 


449 


6,053 


237.4 


120.0 


% of Total 


43.4% 


6.9% 


11.1% 


15.7% 


15.5% 


7.4% 


100.0% 






District 15A 




















Alamance 


1,120 


88 


118 


78 


42 


6 


1,452 


70.8 


36.0 


% of Total 


77.1% 


6.1% 


8.1% 


5.4% 


2.9% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 15B 




















Chatham 


277 


16 


23 


19 


2 


1 


338 


57.0 


23.5 


Orange 


692 


50 


55 


80 


13 


2 


892 


76.5 


45.0 


District Totals 


969 


66 


78 


99 


15 


3 


1,230 


71.1 


36.0 


% of Total 


78.8% 


5.4% 


6.3% 


8.0% 


1.2% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 16A 




















Hoke 


317 


36 


18 


34 


10 


1 


416 


73.3 


40.0 


Scotland 


513 


47 


47 


33 


15 





655 


67.5 


37.0 


District Totals 


830 


83 


65 


67 


25 


1 


1,071 


69.8 


38.0 


% of Total 


77.5% 


7.7% 


6.1% 


6.3% 


2.3% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 16B 




















Robeson 


1,219 


129 


133 


217 


606 


433 


2,737 


311.8 


127.0 


% of Total 


44.5% 


4.7% 


4.9% 


7.9% 


22.1% 


15.8% 


100.0% 






District 17A 




















Caswell 


120 


5 


1 


5 


1 





132 


39.6 


18.5 


Rockingham 


722 


26 


34 


32 


7 


7 


828 


53.4 


25.0 


District Totals 


842 


31 


35 


37 


8 


7 


960 


51.5 


25.0 


% of Total 


87.7% 


3.2% 


3.6% 


3.9% 


0.8% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






District 17B 




















Stokes 


208 


23 


34 


36 


13 


1 


315 


97.5 


54.0 


Surry 


617 


36 


56 


32 


6 


3 


750 


63.7 


43.0 


District Totals 


825 


59 


90 


68 


19 


4 


1,065 


73.7 


45.0 


% of Total 


77.5% 


5.5% 


8.5% 


6.4% 


1.8% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 18 




















Guilford 


7,283 


1,491 


2,712 


4,201 


2,833 


1,117 


19,637 


226.5 


142.0 


% of Total 


37.1% 


7.6% 


13.8% 


21.4% 


14.4% 


5.7% 


100.0% 







257 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 









Ages of Pen< 


ling Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


909 


55 


52 


8 


1 





1,025 


38.8 


26.0 


% of Total 


88.7% 


5.4% 


5.1% 


0.8% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 19B 




















Montgomery 


282 


31 


40 


58 


19 


13 


443 


129.1 


53.0 


Randolph 


1,089 


80 


143 


156 


75 


6 


1,549 


89.5 


44.0 


District Totals 


1,371 


111 


183 


214 


94 


19 


1,992 


98.3 


44.0 


% of Total 


68.8% 


5.6% 


9.2% 


10.7% 


4.7% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 19C 




















Rowan 


852 


70 


58 


18 


3 





1,001 


45.4 


30.0 


% of Total 


85.1% 


7.0% 


5.8% 


1.8% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 20 




















Anson 


244 


10 


8 


15 


13 





290 


60.7 


23.5 


Moore 


456 


18 


79 


142 


179 


107 


981 


276.0 


130.0 


Richmond 


450 


56 


53 


73 


25 


9 


666 


101.1 


36.0 


Stanly 


374 


9 


4 


2 


1 





390 


32.1 


24.0 


Union 


733 


28 


25 


32 


14 


15 


847 


89.5 


22.0 


District Totals 


2,257 


121 


169 


264 


232 


131 


3,174 


139.9 


37.0 


% of Total 


71.1% 


3.8% 


5.3% 


8.3% 


7.3% 


4.1% 


100.0% 






District 21 




















Forsyth 


2,342 


211 


331 


330 


126 


68 


3,408 


111.7 


39.0 


% of Total 


68.7% 


6.2% 


9.7% 


9.7% 


3.7% 


2.0% 


100.0% 






District 22 




















Alexander 


295 


17 


47 


21 








380 


65.3 


39.0 


Davidson 


1,496 


53 


75 


56 


3 





1,683 


43.5 


25.0 


Davie 


185 


59 


23 


13 


17 


8 


305 


116.1 


61.0 


Iredell 


1,230 


85 


99 


97 


8 


1 


1,520 


60.2 


37.0 


District Totals 


3,206 


214 


244 


187 


28 


9 


3,888 


57.9 


31.5 


% of Total 


82.5% 


5.5% 


6.3% 


4.8% 


0.7% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 23 




















Alleghany 


59 


') 


4 


1 








73 


54.4 


47.0 


Ashe 


62 





18 


16 


10 


24 


130 


391.4 


135.0 


Wilkes 


461 


68 


66 


78 


80 


86 


839 


214.8 


73.0 


Yadkin 


110 


8 


2 


7 








127 


54.1 


40.0 


District Totals 


692 


85 


90 


102 


90 


110 


1,169 


207.0 


65.0 


% of Total 


59.2% 


7.3% 


7.7% 


8.7% 


7.7% 


9.4% 


100.0% 







258 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 









Ages of Pend 


ing Cases (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 24 




















Avery 


135 


46 


34 


57 


26 


12 


310 


187.0 


115.0 


Madison 


158 


24 


15 


28 


22 


7 


254 


146.8 


70.5 


Mitchell 


77 


10 


15 


29 


11 


1 


143 


140.8 


74.0 


Watauga 


369 


24 


26 


31 


7 


1 


458 


62.3 


31.0 


Yancey 


138 


13 


16 


8 


2 





177 


59.3 


37.0 


District Totals 


877 


117 


106 


153 


68 


21 


1,342 


115.1 


53.0 


% of Total 


65.4% 


8.7% 


7.9% 


11.4% 


5.1% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






District 25 




















Burke 


556 


42 


116 


23 


4 


2 


743 


58.9 


32.0 


Caldwell 


743 


51 


37 


16 


29 


10 


886 


70.8 


36.0 


Catawba 


1,191 


144 


196 


107 


8 





1,646 


65.5 


38.0 


District Totals 


2,490 


237 


349 


146 


41 


12 


3,275 


65.5 


36.0 


% of Total 


76.0% 


7.2% 


10.7% 


4.5% 


1.3% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


5,950 


713 


918 


1,627 


950 


497 


10,655 


171.2 


73.0 


% of Total 


55.8% 


6.7% 


8.6% 


15.3% 


8.9% 


4.7% 


100.0% 






District 27A 




















Gaston 


2,902 


591 


1,092 


1,367 


373 


60 


6,385 


146.4 


107.0 


% of Total 


45.5% 


9.3% 


17.1% 


21.4% 


5.8% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






District 27B 




















Cleveland 


775 


60 


52 


46 


24 





957 


63.9 


31.0 


Lincoln 


378 


27 


40 


13 


9 


5 


472 


67.9 


30.0 


District Totals 


1,153 


87 


92 


59 


33 


5 


1,429 


65.2 


30.0 


% of Total 


80.7% 


6.1% 


6.4% 


4.1% 


2.3% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 28 




















Buncombe 


1,982 


267 


390 


346 


62 


22 


3,069 


90.6 


54.0 


% of Total 


64.6% 


8.7% 


12.7% 


11.3% 


2.0% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






District 29 




















Henderson 


532 


61 


72 


131 


63 


14 


873 


132.1 


64.0 


McDowell 


330 


56 


43 


51 


29 


10 


519 


120.8 


60.0 


Polk 


84 


5 


6 


8 


1 





104 


56.8 


32.0 


Rutherford 


681 


50 


52 


95 


135 


57 


1,070 


175.6 


57.0 


Transylvania 


167 


22 


18 


35 


18 


18 


278 


182.4 


65.0 


District Totals 


1,794 


194 


191 


320 


246 


99 


2,844 


148.6 


58.0 


% of Total 


63.1% 


6.8% 


6.7% 


11.3% 


8.6% 


3.5% 


100.0% 







259 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1990 









Ages of Penc 


ling Cases ( 


Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


106 


3 


20 


55 


45 


28 


257 


314.5 


178.0 


Clay 


49 








6 


7 





62 


102.5 


31.0 


Graham 


70 


11 


7 


17 


9 





114 


113.3 


51.5 


Haywood 


285 


20 


32 


20 


3 


1 


361 


64.1 


32.0 


Jackson 


165 


2 


6 


5 


7 





185 


63.1 


39.0 


Macon 


91 


2 


9 


22 


5 





129 


98.3 


40.0 


Swain 


50 


5 


3 


2 








60 


40.2 


18.0 


District Totals 


816 


43 


77 


127 


76 


29 


1,168 


128.4 


39.0 


% of Total 


69.9% 


3.7% 


6.6% 


10.9% 


6.5% 


2.5% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


76,694 


9,593 


13,078 


16,497 


9,801 


5,178 


130,841 


155.3 


65.0 


% of Total 


58.6% 


7.3% 


10.0% 


12.6% 


7.5% 


4.0% 


100.0% 







260 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 







Agt 


•sof Dispo 


sed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 1 




















Camden 


171 


5 





2 








178 


30.0 


21.0 


Chowan 


1,072 


10 


19 


19 


7 


4 


1,131 


37.8 


22.0 


Currituck 


722 


14 


11 


12 


1 





760 


34.0 


23.0 


Dare 


3,283 


97 


101 


202 


9 





3,692 


44.6 


24.0 


Gates 


383 


7 


11 


1 








402 


32.1 


24.0 


Pasquotank 


2,668 


71 


63 


65 


1 





2,868 


34.5 


22.0 


Perquimans 


469 


14 


16 


7 


2 





508 


43.1 


30.0 


District Totals 


8,768 


218 


221 


308 


20 


4 


9,539 


39.0 


23.0 


% of Total 


91.9% 


2.3% 


2.3% 


3.2% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 2 




















Beaufort 


3,235 


67 


58 


18 


5 


1 


3,384 


24.3 


14.0 


Hyde 


454 


12 


4 


7 


6 





483 


35.3 


21.0 


Martin 


1,613 


17 


25 


7 


2 





1,664 


20.4 


12.0 


Tyrrell 


322 


3 


7 


2 


1 


1 


336 


33.9 


20.0 


Washington 


856 


6 


10 


18 


2 


1 


893 


28.2 


15.0 


District Totals 


6,480 


105 


104 


52 


16 


3 


6,760 


25.1 


14.0 


% of Total 


95.9% 


1.6% 


1.5% 


0.8% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 3 




















Carteret 


4,801 


539 


479 


333 


67 


6 


6,225 


64.9 


39.0 


Craven 


6,092 


476 


669 


730 


128 


15 


8,110 


70.9 


34.0 


Pamlico 


607 


53 


71 


73 


30 


11 


845 


88.4 


37.0 


Pitt 


12,271 


1,081 


1,118 


790 


153 


1 


15,414 


59.9 


36.0 


District Totals 


23,771 


2,149 


2,337 


1,926 


378 


33 


30,594 


64.6 


36.0 


% of Total 


77.7% 


7.0% 


7.6% 


6.3% 


1.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 4 




















Duplin 


2,863 


240 


149 


76 


5 





3,333 


45.3 


31.0 


Jones 


546 


23 


23 


21 


7 





620 


44.0 


22.0 


Onslow 


9,967 


775 


708 


508 


63 





12,021 


48.8 


26.0 


Sampson 


3,764 


328 


213 


132 


13 





4,450 


51.2 


35.0 


District Totals 


17,140 


1,366 


1,093 


737 


88 





20,424 


48.6 


29.0 


% of Total 


83.9% 


6.7% 


5.4% 


3.6% 


0.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 5 




















New Hanover 


14,998 


835 


586 


584 


284 


98 


17,385 


55.2 


28.0 


Pender 


1,746 


66 


45 


38 


15 


7 


1,917 


42.3 


20.0 


District Totals 


16,744 


901 


631 


622 


299 


105 


19,302 


53.9 


28.0 


% of Total 


86.7% 


4.7% 


3.3% 


3.2% 


1.5% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 6A 




















Halifax 


5,146 


401 


326 


192 


36 


2 


6,103 


46.4 


26.0 


% of Total 


84.3% 


6.6% 


5.3% 


3.1% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







261 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 







Agi 


;s of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


1,548 


32 


14 


9 


1 





1,604 


26.2 


20.0 


Hertford 


2,534 


84 


55 


19 


2 





2,694 


29.5 


18.0 


Northampton 


1,448 


60 


29 


32 


7 





1,576 


31.3 


14.0 


District Totals 


5,530 


176 


98 


60 


10 





5,874 


29.1 


18.0 


% of Total 


94.1% 


3.0% 


1.7% 


1.0% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 7 




















Edgecombe 


5,682 


538 


595 


676 


101 


28 


7,620 


75.2 


43.0 


Nash 


7,275 


616 


868 


979 


228 


16 


9,982 


80.1 


43.0 


Wilson 


4,669 


624 


813 


811 


255 


39 


7,211 


95.6 


55.0 


District Totals 


17,626 


1,778 


2,276 


2,466 


584 


83 


24,813 


83.1 


47.0 


% of Total 


71.0% 


7.2% 


9.2% 


9.9% 


2.4% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 8 




















Greene 


720 


93 


61 


36 


21 


4 


935 


63.0 


31.0 


Lenoir 


3,968 


525 


531 


346 


43 


2 


5,415 


67.4 


42.0 


Wayne 


5,648 


580 


892 


799 


117 


4 


8,040 


79.2 


46.0 


District Totals 


10,336 


1,198 


1,484 


1,181 


181 


10 


14,390 


73.7 


43.0 


% of Total 


71.8% 


8.3% 


10.3% 


8.2% 


1.3% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 9 




















Franklin 


2,351 


142 


118 


91 


17 


3 


2,722 


49.2 


27.0 


Granville 


2,632 


122 


85 


71 


16 


6 


2,932 


39.1 


21.0 


Person 


2,312 


153 


90 


56 


34 


37 


2,682 


58.1 


28.0 


Vance 


4,976 


259 


297 


212 


63 


5 


5,812 


48.1 


20.0 


Warren 


1,225 


52 


68 


70 


5 


3 


1,423 


46.9 


22.0 


District Totals 


13,496 


728 


658 


500 


135 


54 


15,571 


48.2 


22.0 


% of Total 


86.7% 


4.7% 


4.2% 


3.2% 


0.9% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 10 




















Wake 


28,790 


2,340 


2,191 


3,039 


1,193 


231 


37,784 


79.7 


35.0 


% of Total 


76.2% 


6.2% 


5.8% 


8.0% 


3.2% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






District 11 




















Harnett 


4,787 


282 


264 


363 


197 


18 


5,911 


67.2 


26.0 


Johnston 


5,662 


378 


377 


232 


26 


1 


6,676 


47.2 


27.0 


Lee 


5,363 


219 


203 


156 


19 


3 


5,963 


39.3 


21.0 


District Totals 


15,812 


879 


844 


751 


242 


22 


18,550 


51.0 


24.0 


% of Total 


85.2% 


4.7% 


4.5% 


4.0% 


1.3% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 12 




















Cumberland 


16,146 


1,860 


2,239 


1,995 


364 


27 


22,631 


75.4 


42.0 


% of Total 


71.3% 


8.2% 


9.9% 


8.8% 


1.6% 


0.1% 


100.0% 







262 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 







Aj 


»esof Dispo 


sed Cases (] 


3ays) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 13 




















Bladen 


2,750 


144 


185 


91 


30 


1 


3,201 


49.3 


28.0 


Brunswick 


3,393 


230 


138 


113 


81 


40 


3,995 


65.5 


34.0 


Columbus 


3,845 


208 


139 


92 


16 


11 


4,311 


44.6 


27.0 


District Totals 


9,988 


582 


462 


296 


127 


52 


11,507 


53.2 


30.0 


% of Total 


86.8% 


5.1% 


4.0% 


2.6% 


1.1% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 14 




















Durham 


12,844 


1,817 


1,873 


1,553 


465 


28 


18,580 


81.5 


50.0 


% of Total 


69.1% 


9.8% 


10.1% 


8.4% 


2.5% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 15A 




















Alamance 


7,977 


340 


308 


222 


200 


1 


9,048 


50.6 


29.0 


% of Total 


88.2% 


3.8% 


3.4% 


2.5% 


2.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 15B 




















Chatham 


2,327 


105 


92 


122 


32 





2,678 


48.9 


26.0 


Orange 


4,525 


300 


287 


182 


24 


2 


5,320 


50.5 


30.0 


District Totals 


6,852 


405 


379 


304 


56 


2 


7,998 


50.0 


29.0 


% of Total 


85.7% 


5.1% 


4.7% 


3.8% 


0.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 16A 




















Hoke 


1,857 


139 


130 


96 


14 


2 


2,238 


56.0 


35.0 


Scotland 


4,088 


298 


258 


109 


97 


35 


4,885 


59.1 


28.0 


District Totals 


5,945 


437 


388 


205 


111 


37 


7,123 


58.1 


29.0 


% of Total 


83.5% 


6.1% 


5.4% 


2.9% 


1.6% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 16B 




















Robeson 


11,928 


620 


664 


437 


97 


9 


13,755 


41.5 


17.0 


% of Total 


86.7% 


4.5% 


4.8% 


3.2% 


0.7% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 17A 




















Caswell 


1,043 


30 


22 


18 





1 


1,114 


32.3 


22.0 


Rockingham 


5,776 


215 


126 


163 


26 





6,306 


42.3 


28.0 


District Totals 


6,819 


245 


148 


181 


26 


1 


7,420 


40.8 


27.0 


% of Total 


91.9% 


3.3% 


2.0% 


2.4% 


0.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 17B 




















Stokes 


1,529 


161 


83 


45 


17 





1,835 


54.4 


41.0 


Surry 


3,176 


279 


280 


121 


8 


1 


3,865 


56.4 


41.0 


District Totals 


4,705 


440 


363 


166 


25 


1 


5,700 


55.8 


41.0 


% of Total 


82.5% 


7.7% 


6.4% 


2.9% 


0.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 18 




















Guilford 


21,221 


3,731 


4,847 


7,365 


3,242 


712 


41,118 


145.4 


85.0 


% of Total 


51.6% 


9.1% 


11.8% 


17.9% 


7.9% 


1.7% 


100.0% 







263 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 







At 


;esof Dispo 


sed Cases ( 


Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


6,045 


261 


195 


276 


88 





6,865 


52.0 


31.0 


% of Total 


88.1% 


3.8% 


2.8% 


4.0% 


1.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 19B 




















Montgomery 


2,354 


169 


158 


116 


47 


21 


2,865 


65.7 


34.0 


Randolph 


5,679 


600 


501 


596 


172 


4 


7,552 


76.8 


49.0 


District Totals 


8,033 


769 


659 


712 


219 


25 


10,417 


73.8 


45.0 


% of Total 


77.1% 


7.4% 


6.3% 


6.8% 


2.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 19C 




















Rowan 


5,639 


290 


272 


224 


10 





6,435 


47.1 


29.0 


% of Total 


87.6% 


4.5% 


4.2% 


3.5% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 20 




















Anson 


2,023 


74 


66 


23 


11 





2,197 


38.1 


25.0 


Moore 


5,236 


215 


112 


102 


27 


1 


5,693 


34.4 


18.0 


Richmond 


4,609 


154 


114 


89 


32 


1 


4,999 


37.9 


22.0 


Stanly 


3,074 


97 


86 


49 


3 





3,309 


36.5 


26.0 


Union 


5,529 


161 


173 


97 


16 


30 


6,006 


46.7 


21.0 


District Totals 


20,471 


701 


551 


360 


89 


32 


22,204 


39.2 


21.0 


% of Total 


92.2% 


3.2% 


2.5% 


1.6% 


0.4% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 21 




















Forsyth 


23,403 


454 


449 


878 


450 


3 


25,637 


41.6 


20.0 


% of Total 


91.3% 


1.8% 


1.8% 


3.4% 


1.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 22 




















Alexander 


1,436 


116 


114 


78 


16 





1,760 


58.4 


34.0 


Davidson 


8,555 


508 


389 


132 


4 





9,588 


42.4 


28.0 


Davie 


1,056 


103 


139 


60 


38 


3 


1,399 


72.0 


38.0 


Iredell 


7,734 


698 


520 


357 


49 


10 


9,368 


57.8 


40.0 


District Totals 


18,781 


1,425 


1,162 


627 


107 


13 


22,115 


52.0 


34.0 


% of Total 


84.9% 


6.4% 


5.3% 


2.8% 


0.5% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 23 




















Alleghany 


490 


31 


18 


25 


4 


1 


569 


47.9 


27.0 


Ashe 


906 


13 


17 


14 


1 


3 


954 


31.3 


16.0 


Wilkes 


3,484 


185 


147 


94 


14 


74 


3,998 


58.4 


22.0 


Yadkin 


1,051 


39 


41 


11 


1 





1,143 


34.5 


22.0 


District Totals 


5,931 


268 


223 


144 


20 


78 


6,664 


49.5 


22.0 


% of Total 


89.0% 


4.0% 


3.3% 


2.2% 


0.3% 


1.2% 


100.0% 







264 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 







Ag< 


■s of Disposed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 24 




















Avery 


534 


64 


117 


62 


20 


4 


801 


85.4 


52.0 


Madison 


463 


53 


53 


64 


33 


4 


670 


96.6 


45.0 


Mitchell 


350 


31 


20 


19 








420 


54.2 


38.0 


Watauga 


2,026 


210 


159 


129 


35 


10 


2,569 


63.0 


35.0 


Yancey 


513 


48 


53 


29 


4 





647 


61.3 


42.0 


District Totals 


3,886 


406 


402 


303 


92 


18 


5,107 


70.0 


40.0 


% of Total 


76.1% 


7.9% 


7.9% 


5.9% 


1.8% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 25 




















Burke 


4,646 


289 


178 


190 


11 





5,314 


44.2 


26.0 


Caldwell 


3,761 


240 


198 


94 


12 





4,305 


44.6 


28.0 


Catawba 


7,059 


580 


376 


499 


17 


1 


8,532 


53.8 


31.0 


District Totals 


15,466 


1,109 


752 


783 


40 


1 


18,151 


48.8 


28.0 


% of Total 


85.2% 


6.1% 


4.1% 


4.3% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


37,196 


2,290 


1,590 


2,398 


1,089 


342 


44,905 


65.5 


31.0 


% of Total 


82.8% 


5.1% 


3.5% 


5.3% 


2.4% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 27A 




















Gaston 


8,177 


1,538 


1,562 


2,241 


1,141 


86 


14,745 


132.5 


78.0 


% of Total 


55.5% 


10.4% 


10.6% 


15.2% 


7.7% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






District 27B 




















Cleveland 


5,174 


320 


204 


211 


56 


4 


5,969 


49.9 


29.0 


Lincoln 


3,381 


112 


109 


108 


9 


12 


3,731 


43.3 


26.0 


District Totals 


8,555 


432 


313 


319 


65 


16 


9,700 


47.4 


27.0 


% of Total 


88.2% 


4.5% 


3.2% 


3.3% 


0.7% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 28 




















Buncombe 


13,391 


873 


1,003 


1,482 


161 


4 


16,914 


64.8 


32.0 


% of Total 


79.2% 


5.2% 


5.9% 


8.8% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 29 




















Henderson 


4,180 


300 


277 


326 


56 


3 


5,142 


62.0 


35.0 


McDowell 


1,896 


122 


131 


94 


27 


1 


2,271 


55.9 


34.0 


Polk 


531 


60 


68 


35 


6 





700 


60.0 


37.0 


Rutherford 


3,791 


250 


226 


162 


71 


108 


4,608 


84.4 


36.0 


Transylvania 


1,535 


115 


67 


44 


17 





1,778 


41.9 


20.0 


District Totals 


11,933 


847 


769 


661 


177 


112 


14,499 


65.6 


34.0 


% of Total 


82.3% 


5.8% 


5.3% 


4.6% 


1.2% 


0.8% 


100.0% 







265 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 







Ag 


es of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


1,058 


69 


24 


24 


4 


1 


1,180 


47.8 


35.0 


Clay 


287 


13 


5 


3 








308 


35.2 


26.0 


Graham 


312 


57 


39 


20 


2 





430 


62.5 


49.0 


Haywood 


2,417 


151 


174 


73 


1 





2,816 


42.8 


25.0 


Jackson 


1,100 


55 


32 


30 


6 





1,223 


44.0 


28.0 


Macon 


805 


49 


33 


30 





3 


920 


48.1 


29.0 


Swain 


537 


31 


28 


18 


5 





619 


47.7 


30.0 


District Totals 


6,516 


425 


335 


198 


18 


4 


7,496 


45.7 


29.0 


% of Total 


86.9% 


5.7% 


4.5% 


2.6% 


0.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


467,487 


34,804 


34,171 


36,164 


11,661 


2,151 


586,438 


66.4 


33.0 


% of Total 


79.7% 


5.9% 


5.8% 


6.2% 


2.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 







266 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 





Filed 




Dispositions 






Waiver 


Other 


Total Dispositions 


District 1 










Camden 


1,287 


1,023 


185 


1,208 


Chowan 


2,214 


1,820 


318 


2,138 


Currituck 


2,666 


2,177 


272 


2,449 


Dare 


9,652 


7,721 


1,824 


9,545 


Gates 


1,817 


1,365 


398 


1,763 


Pasquotank 


2,956 


2,379 


552 


2,931 


Perquimans 


1,334 


1,046 


261 


1,307 


District Totals 


21,926 


17,531 


3,810 


21,341 


District 2 










Beaufort 


6,642 


4,241 


2,577 


6,818 


Hyde 


1,023 


680 


356 


1,036 


Martin 


3,407 


2,190 


1,255 


3,445 


Tyrrell 


2,650 


2,123 


815 


2,938 


Washington 


1,608 


966 


544 


1,510 


District Totals 


15,330 


10,200 


5,547 


15,747 


District 3 










Carteret 


6,056 


4,032 


1,766 


5,798 


Craven 


6,094 


4,029 


2,229 


6,258 


Pamlico 


519 


310 


198 


508 


Pitt 


12,861 


6,518 


6,472 


12,990 


District Totals 


25,530 


14,889 


10,665 


25,554 


District 4 










Duplin 


4,361 


2,851 


1,594 


4,445 


Jones 


915 


574 


382 


956 


Onslow 


8,977 


6,008 


2,934 


8,942 


Sampson 


7,653 


5,305 


2,388 


7,693 


District Totals 


21,906 


14,738 


7,298 


22,036 


District 5 










New Hanover 


10,528 


4,822 


5,979 


10,801 


Pender 


3,361 


1,934 


1,328 


3,262 


District Totals 


13,889 


6,756 


7,307 


14,063 


District 6A 










Halifax 


8,715 


6,392 


2,276 


8,668 


District 6B 










Bertie 


2,455 


1,693 


805 


2,498 


Hertford 


2,456 


1,669 


779 


2,448 


Northampton 


2,844 


2,047 


949 


2,996 


District Totals 


7,755 


5,409 


2,533 


7,942 



267 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Dispositions 



Filed 



Waiver 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 7 










Edgecombe 


7,572 


5,929 


1,270 


7,199 


Nash 


7,390 


5,856 


1,621 


7,477 


Wilson 


7,844 


6,142 


1,414 


7,556 


District Totals 


22,806 


17,927 


4,305 


22,232 


District 8 










Greene 


1,653 


1,040 


656 


1,696 


Lenoir 


7,983 


4,522 


3,223 


7,745 


Wayne 


8,280 


4,737 


3,359 


8,096 


District Totals 


17,916 


10,299 


7,238 


17,537 


District 9 










Franklin 


2,530 


1,536 


1,110 


2,646 


Granville 


4,389 


2,801 


1,412 


4,213 


Person 


2,432 


1,283 


1,179 


2,462 


Vance 


4,695 


3,434 


1,791 


5,225 


Warren 


1,989 


1,493 


602 


2,095 


District Totals 


16,035 


10,547 


6,094 


16,641 


District 10 










Wake 


34,353 


15,766 


16,002 


31,768 


District 11 










Harnett 


5,206 


2,978 


2,390 


5,368 


Johnston 


8,165 


4,943 


3,395 


8,338 


Lee 


5,762 


3,630 


1,954 


5,584 


District Totals 


19,133 


11,551 


7,739 


19,290 


District 12 










Cumberland 


24,769 


15,771 


8,986 


24,757 


District 13 










Bladen 


4,311 


2,445 


1,750 


4,195 


Brunswick 


5,352 


2,861 


2,663 


5,524 


Columbus 


5,115 


2,885 


2,017 


4,902 


District Totals 


14,778 


8,191 


6,430 


14,621 


District 14 










Durham 


16,442 


10,665 


7,684 


18,349 


District 15A 










Alamance 


12,265 


7,234 


4,652 


11,886 



268 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Dispositions 



Filed 



Waiver 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 15B 




Chatham 


5,425 


Orange 


9,609 


District Totals 


15,034 


District 16A 




Hoke 


2,359 


Scotland 


2,542 


District Totals 


4,901 


District 16B 




Robeson 


9,872 


District 17A 




Caswell 


1,897 


Rockingham 


9,810 


District Totals 


11,707 


District 17B 




Stokes 


4,688 


Surry 


6,302 


District Totals 


10,990 


District 18 




Guilford 


54,837 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 


10,163 


District 19B 




Montgomery 


2,747 


Randolph 


9,857 


District Totals 


12,604 


District 19C 




Rowan 


10,773 


District 20 




Anson 


2,195 


Moore 


7,828 


Richmond 


4,563 


Stanly 


3,396 


Union 


7,322 


District Totals 


25,304 



3,561 
5,601 

9,162 



1,756 
1,834 

3,590 



6,481 



1,254 
6,395 

7,649 



2,857 
4,456 

7,313 



26,692 



7,138 



1,739 
5,653 

7,392 



6,957 



1,374 
4,868 
3,036 
2,237 
4,942 

16,457 



2,054 
4,825 

6,879 



724 
837 

1,561 



4,434 



610 
3,052 

3,662 



1,764 
1,907 

3,671 



29,722 



3,273 



960 

4,045 

5,005 



3,953 



760 
3,340 
1,747 
1,137 
2,548 

9,532 



5,615 
10,426 

16,041 



2,480 
2,671 

5,151 



10,915 



1,864 
9,447 

11,311 



4,621 
6,363 

10,984 



56,414 



10,411 



2,699 
9,698 

12,397 



10,910 



2,134 
8,208 
4,783 
3,374 
7,490 

25,989 



269 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Dispositions 



Filed 



Waiver 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 21 




Forsyth 


22,829 


District 22 




Alexander 


1,925 


Davidson 


10,571 


Davie 


3,028 


Iredell 


9,584 


District Totals 


25,108 


District 23 




Alleghany 


842 


Ashe 


1,723 


Wilkes 


4,075 


Yadkin 


3,770 


District Totals 


10,410 


District 24 




Avery 


1,902 


Madison 


1,725 


Mitchell 


999 


Watauga 


3,361 


Yancey 


2,078 


District Totals 


10,065 


District 25 




Burke 


6,739 


Caldwell 


4,862 


Catawba 


10,323 


District Totals 


21,924 


District 26 




Mecklenburg 


51,560 


District 27A 




Gaston 


13,535 


District 27B 




Cleveland 


8,691 


Lincoln 


3,354 


District Totals 


12,045 


District 28 




Buncombe 


10,538 



12,403 



1,145 
5,790 
1,617 
5,691 

14,243 



574 
1,099 
2,495 
2,556 

6,724 



1,513 
1,324 
619 
2,595 
1,565 

7,616 



3,311 
1,986 
4,468 

9,765 



23,768 



6,846 



4,984 
1,836 

6,820 



8,981 



10,517 



867 
4,370 

992 
3,872 

10,101 



376 

595 

1,549 

1,150 

3,670 



459 
375 
361 
798 
440 

2,433 



3,611 
3,358 
5,832 

12,801 



28,830 



6,662 



3,779 
1,581 

5,360 



1,765 



22,920 



2,012 

10,160 

2,609 

9,563 

24,344 



950 
1,694 
4,044 
3,706 

10,394 



1,972 
1,699 
980 
3,393 
2,005 

10,049 



6,922 

5,344 

10,300 

22,566 



52,598 



13,508 



8,763 
3,417 

12,180 



10,746 



270 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1989 -- June 30, 1990 

Dispositions 



Filed 



District 29 




Henderson 


5,778 


McDowell 


4,396 


Polk 


1,638 


Rutherford 


4,233 


Transylvania 


1,293 


District Totals 


17,338 


District 30 




Cherokee 


2,605 


Clay 


781 


Graham 


507 


Haywood 


3,855 


Jackson 


2,104 


Macon 


2,887 


Swain 


1,843 


District Totals 


14,582 


State Totals 


669,667 



Waiver 



4,652 
3,097 
1,274 
3,296 
889 

13,208 



)ther 


Total Dispositions 


1,294 


5,946 


1,237 


4,334 


328 


1,602 


1,163 


4,459 


346 


1,235 



4,368 



1,914 


794 


523 


238 


364 


155 


2,956 


1,093 


1,405 


630 


2,273 


643 


1,361 


480 


10,796 


4,033 


403,867 


270,798 



17,576 

2,708 
761 
519 
4,049 
2,035 
2,916 
1,841 

14,829 

674,665 



271 



STATE LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA 



3 3091 00748 3258 



N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts 

1,500 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of 
S9,53 1 .45, or $6.35 per copy.